5 



1 




A 

CRITICAL REVIEW 

OP 

WESLEYAN PERFECTION, 

IN 

TWENTY-FOUB CONSECUTIVE ARGUMENTS, 
IN WHICH 

THE DOCTRLVE OF SIN IN BELIEVERS IS DISCUSSED, 

AND 

THE PROOF-TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE ADVOCATING ENTIRE SANCTI- 
FICATION, AS A SECOND AND DISTINCT BLESSING IN THE 
SOUL AFTER REGENERATION, FAIRLY DEBATED. 

BY EEY. S. FEA^^KLIJSr, A. M., 

OF THE ILLINOIS ANNUAL CONFERENCE, 
t 

"To the law and to the testimoDy." Isaiah vin, 20. 

♦'Nor do I dread ultimate danger to the cause of truth from fair discussion." 
Abch BISHOP Whately. 

•'There are systems of theology yet rearing their yenerable heads, defying the 
assaults of reason, because shielded by the aegis of authority." Bishop E. Thomson. 

CINCINNATI: 

PRINTED AT THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN, 

FOR THE AUTHOR. 



R. P. THOMPSON, PRINTER. 
1866. . 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, 

BY SAMUEL FRANKLIN, 

the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
Southern District of Ohio. 



TO 

ALL WHO EXPECT TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE 
THROUGH THE MERITS OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST 

THIS WORK IS DEDICATED, 

AS 

A TOKEN OF THAT CHRISTIAN LOVE WHICH IT INCULCATES, 
BY THEIR FRIEND, 

THE AUTHOR. 



PREFACE. 



1. The multiplicity of works on sanctification and Chris- 
tian perfection, and consequently the various opinions 
that exist as to these Scriptural terms, one would think 
should elicit an apology for undertaking to offer the 
Christian world an additional volume. This supposition, 
also, we should regard as just, did we presume to sustain 
some old theory that has been long enough in existence 
to prove itself neither truly Biblical nor practical. No 
apology, therefore, do we offer, except this Review itself. 

2. No effort has been attempted whatever, or desire 
felt, for authorship in writing these arguments. He who 
would write a book merely for the sake of authorship is 
not more likely to gain his end than he is to beget a 
thing in his own likeness. This may account for the 
fact that there are now more authors than authorities on 
this very subject. 

3. A work setting forth a clear theory and a possible 
practice of sanctification we have felt since the beginning of 
our study of theology to be a desideratum^ not only of our 
own Church, but perhaps even more so of other denom- 
inations. Our humble effort has had its origin in necessity 
and in our personal knowledge of that necessity. For, as 
far as we are able to say, even the Christian ministry, at 

the present day, is in need of more light on the doctrine 

5 



6 



PREFACE. 



herein considered. This is to be inferred from many con- 
siderations -^-hich might be given, most of which the reader 
can discover in the body of our work. Tlieoretically, the 
views of authors on perfection have been so obscure that 
their readers have generally expressed much dissatisfac- 
tion concerning them — a fact well known. Practically, 
out of the many professing regeneration, we scarcely 
ever find one professing entire sanctification, as held and 
taught by our ^vriters. Well did Bishop Hamline, in his 
recommendation of Dr, Peck's work on Christian perfec- 
tion, say, "In a word, every cardinal doctrine embraced 
in our creed and in our pastoral ministrations seems to be 
extensively and encouragingly practical, except that of 
Christian perfection. This seems to be a mere specula- 
tion in the Church, so far as forty-nine-fiftieths of her 
members are concerned." 

4. Our design has been to teach, as far as possible, 
what the Bible says concerning sanctification. Accord- 
ingly, we have begun our work with the beginning of 
Divine revelation. The true starting point is in the 
Abrahamic covenant, where it is manifestly taught and 
represented to be a part essentially connected with that 
covenant. It will appear from our work that Moses, 
David, the prophets, Christ and the apostles taught it 
either directly or indirectly referring to the compact with 
Abraham. He who does not teach the doctrine as con- 
sidered in that covenant, does not take it up in its proper 
theological relation ; and he who takes a text over in the 
Epistles as his motto^ and thus begins the wrong end of 
Scriptural research, betrays his misunderstanding of the 
whole subject. We have tried faithfully to adhere to 
what is Scriptural in all cases. We did not set out to 



PREFACE. 



7 



try to establish any uninspired man's opinion. It is true 
we are largely indebted to the writings of others, but 
these are brought in in an incidental manner as having 
said things exactly suitable to sustain our view primarily 
taken from the Bible. They did not say them with a 
direct intention to sustain a view the same as our own, 
for this they had not. 

5. In Part I of the work, embraced in the first ten 
Arguments, we have exhibited mostly those difficulties 
which attend the commonly -received theory of perfection. 
In Part II we have taken up the proof-passages which 
have usually been held to sustain what is called entire 
sanctification. Such words as occur in important proof- 
passages have been examined wherever they occur, their 
radical meaning being first assumed, and by fair com- 
parison of essential points of review we have settled down 
on our conclusions. 

6. The manner of our arguments and exegesis has 
been, in all instances, what we call fair. Our rules of 
interpretation are such as are established by the able 
writers which our Church and other orthodox denomina- 
tions acknowledge. While we have quoted all our com- 
mentators, we have chiefly relied on Dr. Adam Clarke, 
as himself being an entire sanctificationist, to settle the 
meaning of such words and texts as he held suitable to 
our arguments. It would have been vain for us to labor 
to prove what the advocates of the theory in review 
acknowledge. In our review of texts much relied upon 
by all who have written before us, we have strongly 
asserted our propositions and points of debate, and have 
then been careful to argue them cogently. In such cases 
we have inquired for the scope and the context; things 



8 



PREFACE. 



which our writers have scarcely mentioned at all on any 
proof-passage. A weak argument we regard as worse 
than none at all, on any subject; therefore we have tried 
always to advance such plain and strong points as will 
meet the approval of the true theologian. 

7. The entire Review is presented in twenty-four con- 
secutive Arguments. These depend, like the books of 
Geometry, to some extent on one another. It seemed 
best to us to argue under leading propositions in order 
to elicit such points in review as would bring out the 
truth in its strongest colors, and thereby enable us to 
come to fair conclusions. 

8. This necessary investigation, by propositions and the 
examination of each word having an essential bearing on 
our Review, has required a more voluminous work than 
would otherwise have been needed. It is hoped, there- 
fore, that these remarks will be a sufficient apology for 
writing as extensively. For one undertaking to write a 
new theory, however Scriptural he may be, coming into 
competition with views of long standing and from repu- 
table sources, would prefer the imputation of prolixity, 
though he might not justly deserve it, to the charge of 
not having accomplished his undertaking, and thus render 
himself liable to unjust and severe censure, simply in 
failing, through brevity, to adduce the arguments within 
his reach, and absolutely necessary to strength and 
clearness. 

9. It is hoped that the criticisms which we have offered 
from the original languages of the Holy Scriptures will 
not be regarded as unnecessary or pedantic. The Bible 
being our Hule of Faith," we have found it proper to 
appeal to the originals, not from choice, but from a 



PREFACE. 



9 



necessity pertaining to perspicuity. As to those who think 
a writer's cause hopeless, when he is obliged to go to the 
originals, let them bear in mind that such has been the 
custom with all theologians and commentators where a 
difference of opinion exists. Those who have written on 
this very subject have done the same. Such a course 
actually forms a part of a critical review. 

10. We are not unaware of the fact that our undertak- 
ing renders us liable to satire, most likely from those 
who are inclined to regard truth as depending more on 
antiquity than on close investigation. Should we have 
such readers, we respectfully suggest that an honorable 
refutation of our arguments may appear more timely 
than an unsolicited accusation. " Human authority is 
often put in the place of Divine. The mind, conscious 
of its weakness, and averse to laborious inquiry, is prone 
to repose confidence in the authority of great names." 
(Bishop E. Thomson.) Truth can never be marred of 
its luster by the friction of rigid investigation. 

11. The fact that we have differed from reputable au- 
thors chiefly as to sanctification being external and the 
fruit of regeneration, instead of its being an additional 
distinct work within, may at first appear novel and per- 
haps averse to some. But it is well to observe, that, in 
the course of the following arguments, we have, upon the 
whole, quoted our eminent Methodist writers perhaps 
more than any recent writer on the subject of perfection 
has done, or could possibly do in support of another theory. 
As already mentioned, we have appealed to them in many 
instances to prove the position which is now presented to 
the public. AVhile our behef of the questions, upon the 
whole, is sui generis^ it is a remarkable fact that their 



10 



PREFACE. 



writings, generally, so well support our position. In truth, 
so far as our view seems to depart from theirs, we do not 
say that this disagreement is not as much a departure 
from them as it is a want of consistency on their own 
part with themselves. He who will carefully read our 
authors, as to their theory of perfection, and reason on 
its difficulties on all sides, and then duly consider this 
Review, we are inclined to think, will regard us as doing 
more to reconcile their theory with themselves and with 
reason than any thing else. For we think their ideas of 
regeneration every-where are too strong to be compatible 
with the necessity and the posBihility of a greater work 
in the soul. 

12. It is hoped that no one will impugn our motives. 
We have truly had a pure intention. We have written for 
the glory of God and the benefit of man. Of course we 
expect to pass through the furnace of unrelenting pubhc 
criticism ; but supposing our metal pure we fearlessly 
commit it to the flames. It has been our object to treat 
our excellent commentators and critical writers with that 
profound and merited respect which is justly theirs. Ko 
man living desires to esteem them more highly than we 
do. Perhaps no men ever deserved more credit for their 
beneficial labors to mankind than those very men who 
aimed to teach pure Scriptural holiness. We are always 
sorry to find a Methodist family, in respectable circum- 
stances, who are not in possession of those instructive 
and holy writings. Such men are scarcely fit for any 
office of profit to the Church. They can hardly be sup- 
posed as devout in their families. The works of Mr. 
Wesley, Dr. Adam Clarke, Rev. Richard Watson, and 
Mr. Benson, should, in whole or in part, be found in 



PREFACE. 



11 



every Christian family in our Cliiircli. We have not 
presumed to review those great and good men under the 
idea of refutation, but for the justification of our position 
in part. In scores of instances they incidentally speak 
out the very doctrine that we have advocated in this 
work. On the other hand, our intention has been to 
give hght and instruction on the important doctrine of 
internal purity and external holiness. The work now 
offered to the reader, however imperfect it may seem, is 
the result of several years of almost incessant toil. No 
one but he who has tried the like can form a proper idea 
of the labor it requires. We hope to be understood in 
all that we have done. However strongly we may have 
argued, and set forth our sincere belief, let the whole be 
reo-arded as suo-orestive. Our Review we offer as a hum- 
ble and unassuming volume. The Bible is the common 
property of us all. If we are incorrect, we shall be glad 
at any time to find our errors refuted, and the way to 
eternal life more clearly pointed out. If we have erred 
our difficulty is in the head and not in the heart. Of 
this the reader will please take due notice and govern 
himself accordingly. May truth, intelligence, and true 
piety be promoted in the behever, and our blessed Lord 
AND Savior Jesus Christ be glorified, in this the first- 
fruits of the author's pen ! then shall he feel that his labor 
is not in vain in the Lord, and that he has an ample 
reward. 

S. FRANKLIN. 

Cincinnati, 0., May 1, 1866. 



OOE"TENTS. 



PAGE. 

Pebfacb 5 

PART I. 
JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 

ARGUMENT I. 

That regeneration, which always accompanies justification, is a sinless 
state of the soul. Argued on the ground that Abraham fills his part 
in the covenant. We infer, 1. That God did his part in the covenant; 
also, 2. Christ is given ; 3. He was a sacrifice for all men ; 4. All- 
suflBcient ; 5. Abraham had all the benefits of Christ's blood ; 6. But 
Abraham's moral condition was simply justification; 7. Let us take 
the hypothesis that sin does remain in one justified ; 8. Abraham 
had perfect faith, and why should sin remain ? 19 

ARGUMENT II. 

"We continue to argue. That regeneration is a sinless state : 1. Argu- 
ment from Acts xiii, 38, 39 ; 2. Col. ii, 13 ; 3. Gal. ii, 20, 21 ; 4. The 
results of justification argued from Rom. v, 1 32 



ARGUMENT III. 

We still argue that regeneration is a sinless state : 1. Eph. iv, 24 ; 2. 
The idea of a creation implies sinlessness j 3. Sinlessness implied 
Mr. Watson's definition ; 4. Regeneration contrasted with a fallen 
state ; 5. Certain theological writers 46 



ARGUMENT IV. 

Sinless regeneration admits further Scripture proof: I. St. Paul no 
where in Romans teaches entire sanctification, so called, each chap- 
ter being examined. II. The blessing taught, being the new truth, 
is held to be sinless : 1. The apostle's confidence ; 2. The regenerated 
are excused from further preparation to meet God ; 3. Christ's blood 
is represented as applied, which cleanses from all sin ; 4. Regenera- 
tion saves the soul eternally ; 5. The manner in which the prophets 

13 



14 CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

spoke of regeneration ; 6. Actual case of David ; 7. "Water baptism 
is the sign of a sinless state, which is regeneration ; 8. Our " old 
man" is crucified ; 9. The regenerated are the elect; 10. The king- 
dom of God excludes the so-called entire sanctification ; 11. The 
want of regeneration is the damnation of the soul ; 12. The verb to 
sanctifij and the noun sanctification, as teaching a second work, are 



not found in the Epistle to the Romans 56 

ARGUMENT V. 

Regeneration the only blessing promised in this life: 1. Isa. liii, 11; 
2. Jer. xxxi, 33, 34 ; 3. Micah vii, 18; 4. Rom. v, 19; 5. Gal. 
iii, 8; 6. Rom. iv, 13; 7. Rom. xiv, 17, 18 101 



ARGUMENT VI. 

Regeneration is the only inward work incidentally taught in the Bible : 
1. It is regarded as God's peculiar mode of saving man ; 2. He imputea 
no other; 3. It has ministers ; 4. It has fruits ascribed to it ; 6. We 
. are represented as serving justification and not sanctification ; 6. We 
are persecuted for justification; 7. It is the theme of the minister; 
8. God's people exult in it; 9. It is the point from which one back- 



slides; 10. The 7iame should decide the blessings 118 

ARGUMENT YII. 

The atonement contemplates regeneration only: 1. John iii, 14, 15; 
2. Rom. iii, 25 ; 3. 2 Cor. v, 21 ; 4. Gal. ii, 21 ; 5. Gal. iii, 13, 14 ; 
6. 1 Pet. ii, 24 129 



ARGUMENT VIII. 

Regeneration is sufficient for man's salvation without any second or 
additional blessing. Argued from, 1. The unintentional writings of 
entire sanctificationists themselves. Peck, Wesley, Clarke, Watson ; 
2. Scripture, John i, 12, 13, and iii, 3, etc. ; 3. Phil, iii, 7-9. Two 
observations, (n) The apostle speaks of the new birth only; (6) Its 
sufficiency to save; 4. Gal. v, 5, 6 ; 5. Luke xv, 7 134 

ARGUMENT IX. 

Regeneration is the only blessing, as a work of the Holy Spirit in the 
heart, that ever Christ preached during his whole public ministry. 
1. Christ's preaching always implied the covenant made with Abra- 



ham ; 2. The very terms of that covenant are mentioned 151 

ARGUMENT X. 

Entire sanctification, as an inward blessing subsequent to regeneration, 
is objectionable. Here eight objections arise 162 



CONTENTS. 15 

PART II. 

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 

PAGE. 

PRELIMinAET TO PaRT II. OUR ViEWS STATED 213 

ARGUMENT XI. 



Hebrew word tamin, " perfect," examined ; Scriptural texts cited and 
explained; what is signified by "perfect" in the passages quoted. ..217 

ARGUMENT XII. 
The word tarn considered : Its scope and meaning as in Psa. xxxvii, and 



Job i, 1 245 

ARGUMENT XIII. 

Tamam, " to make perfect," explained. The argument enforced by its 
use iD such texts as Josh, iii, 17 ; v, 8 ; 1 Kings vi, 22 ; vii, 22 ; Ezek. 
xxiv, 10 ; Job xxii, 3, and Psa. xviii, 25 248 



ARGUMENT XIV. 

This argument merely notices kadhash, the Hebrew verb io mnctify : 
Does not mean inward holiness. For this purpose talier is used in 
Scripture. Nor does its derivative, hodlieaJi, holiness, mean moral, 



internal purity 252 

ARGUMENT XV. 

This argument is on the adjective kadhosh, holi/ : Its etymology — its 
use in the Old Testament, and its equivalent in the New 254 

ARGUMENT XVI. 



The Greek word hagios, holy, is now in hand : 1. Applied in New Test- 
ament to many objects ; 2. We use it here as applied to man ; 3. 
Luke vi, 20, i, 70, ii, 23, Ex. xiii, i, 2, are quoted; 4. Opinion of 
Wesley and Hibbard supports us ; 5. The sum of the whole matter 
proved by Lev. xx, 25, 26 ; 6. 2 Cor. vii, 1, misinterpreted by authors.202 

ARGUMENT XVII. 

We here consider the Greek verb hagiazo, to sanctify: 1. It occurs 
twenty-nine times in New Testament ; 2. Is a Hebrew word in a 
Greek dress, because found only in the Ecclesiastical dialect; 3. 
Each passage where it occurs is carefully and critically examined. 
It does not mean to take away sin from the heart; that is, to cleanse 
morally 273 



16 



CONTENTS. 



ARGUMENT XVIII. 

PAGE. 

This argument considers the G-reek noun hagiosmos, holiness : 1. It is 
derived from hagiazo, to make holy; 2. Occurs ten times in New 
Testament — five times rendered " holiness," and five times " sancti- 
ficationj" 3. Is not found in profane writers j 4. Each passage is 
critically examined ; 5. The meaning decided by Wesley, Clarke, 
Benson, Coke, Stuart, Eobinson, and Greenfield 403 

ARGUMENT XIX. 

This argument takes up the Greek noun hagiosuxe, holiness: Its ab- 
stract meaning — its use in the New Testament, and its correspond- 
ing term in the Old ^ 435 

ARGUMENT XX. 

The Greek word teleios is considered : 1. It is found nineteen times ; 
2. Matt. V, 48, examined ; 3. Writers on Christian perfection hold 
this text to teach a second work; but, 4. This second work is objec- 
tionable 461 

ARGUMENT XXI. 

Takes in hand the Greek word teleiotes, ^er/ecfne«s. The word occurs 
twice in New Testament, namely. Col. iii, 14, and Heb. vi, 1. This 
latter is Dr. Peck's general text — his motto, as used in his work to 
prove a second blessing. Several arguments are against him : 1. The 
Hebrews were already regenerated ; 2. The scope; 3. The context; 
4. The etymology of the word ; 5. The opinions of Biblical critics ; 
6. Such a sense of the text would not agree with the final apostasy 
taught in the Epistle 493 

ARGUMENT XXII. 

We take up here the Greek verb teleioo, to make perfect : 1. It is found 
twenty-four times in New Testament; 2. Each passage is examined. 508 

ARGUMENT XXIII. 

Considers the Greek verb kataetizo, to make perfect : 1. It is found thir- 
teen times ; 2. Each passage is consulted 516 



ARGUMENT XXIV. 

The CONCLUSION on the entire subject. I. As to regeneration. Here 
we touch every essential feature of this blessing. A Christian 
growth is fully and Scripturally advocated. II. As to perfection. 
Here the subject is minutely considered 524 



PART I. 

JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION, 



A 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



ARGUMENT I. 

The design of this Argument is to show : That regen- 
eration, WHICH ALWAYS ACCOMPANIES JUSTIFICATION, IS A 
SINLESS STATE OF THE SOUL. 

This proposition we argue on the ground tliat one just- 
ified and regenerated fills Ms part of the Ahrahamic cov- 
enant. When God called Abraham out of Ur of the 
Chaldees, foreseeing that he would justify the heathen 
through faith, he entered into a covenant with him in 
which he preached to him the Gospel, sa3-ing, "In thee 
shall all fjirailies of the earth be blessed." According to 
the command of God he entered Canaan. Subsequently 
to this, the Lord appeared to Abraham in a vision, "And 
he brought him forth abroad, and said. Look now toward 
heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be a,ble to number them : 
and he said unto him. So shall thy seed be. And he 
believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for right- 
eousness ;" that is, justification. This language, found 
in the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, is the doctrine of the 
Abrahamic covenant in full, as to its spiritual meaning, 
benefits, and blessings; for we notice in this: 1. That a 

very numerous spiritual posterity is promised to Abraham, 

19 



20 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Pabt I. 



which can only be through Christ. 2. Abraham himself 
receives justification and regeneration. 3. The offer of 
the Messiah, set forth in the words of the Lord to Abra- 
ham, is by St. Paul called a promise, while we have called 
it, above, a covenant, or rather God's part in the cove- 
nant, so far as it relates to sphitual blessings, and yet 
there is no contradiction. For, we are speaking of the 
covenant considered as something existing between two; 
but when St. Paul called it a promise, he had reference 
to the part in the covenant which God had promised to 
perform, and to that only, as in the expression, "For the 
PROMISE that he should be the heir of the world," etc. 
Rom. iv, 13. 4. In Genesis, chapter xvii, the same 
thing is called a covenant, because there God confirms the 
relation previously existing between himself and Abra- 
ham, saying: "I will establish my covenant between me 
and thee." At the time Abraham received justification, 
the whole covenant, with all its conditions on the part 
of both God and man, was in the Divine Mind. Faitli 
was man's part in order to justification and regeneration. 
Afterward, when the relation between God and man was 
established — that is, when all things pertaining to the cov- 
enant of grace between God and Abraham were ratified — 
the further external part was affixed to the same covenant ; 
namely, circumcision, the sign of the faith which he had in 
God by which he received justification — the " seal of the 
righteousness of the faith Avhich he had being yet uncircum- 
cised." 5. We may safely conclude, then, that it is proper 
to use the word covenant, to express the plan employed by 
the Lord to bring himself and rebellious man together; 
and we use it in the same sense in wliich St, Paul used 
the word loromise. Now, Dr. Adam Clarke says : " Cove- 
nant, from con, together, and venio, I come, and signifies 
an agreement, contract, or compact between two parties, 
by which both are mutually bound to do certain things, on 
certain conditions and penalties." The part which God 



Arg. I.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



21 



promised to perform in the covenant, contract, bargain or 
compact made between himself and Abraham, was, in sub- 
stance, that his own Son Jesus Christ should be born of 
the descendants of Abraham, and that in him "all fam- 
ilies of the earth should be blessed," which blessing 
includes that of eternal life. This much God promised, 
with many other temporal blessings and favors which 
need not be mentioned here. As to Abraham, the other 
party to the covenant, and, also, the example of all true 
believers, faith was the term or condition in the covenant 
which God required him and those who should walk in his 
steps to exercise. Men have always been saved through 
faith in Christ, even antecedent to God's presenting the 
plan of salvation to man in the covenant. Abel oiFers 
his "more excellent sacrifice" "by faith," which implies 
that the covenant then existed in the Divine Mind and 
purpose. 

This helps us to see more extensively the mercy and 
love in God's plan of redemption to a lost world. Man 
had sinned against God. This sin in its effects and 
tendencies had separated God and man. He became " an 
alien" and "without God in the world." The Divine 
command having been broken, it was impossible for God 
to save without a proper vindication of his holy law. He 
oifers his only Son, as his own part in the covenant of 
mercy, on the condition that he will save mankind through 
him IF they believe, as their part in the same covenant. 
Hence, being separated, by this covenant of grace — con, 
together, veniunt, they come — God and man convene. They 
come together; mercy is offered on condition. Man has a 
full and sufficient Savior ! 

Now, although Abraham was the particular person with 
whom and in whom God made this covenant, it was, never- 
theless, made for us Gentiles, every one, just as much as it 
was made for Abraham. " It was not written for his sake 
alone to whom it shall be imputed; but for us also, to 



22 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on bim that raised 
up Jesus, our Lord, from the dead." It is on this ac- 
count that we are justified, regenerated, and saved from 
all our sins when we believe, simply because we comply 
with the tmn or condition of the Abrahamic covenant, 
which is faith. For if we are unbelievers, being such, we 
break this term of the covenant; and if the term of a 
covenant is broken, the covenant itself is broken and is 
rendered null. St. Paul meant this, seeing that the Jew 
expected justification by the mere observance of the law, 
independent of faith, and concerning this fact said: For 
not through laiv loas the promise — God's part in the cove- 
nant — to Abraham or to his seed, that he should he the heir 
of the ivorld, hut through justificatioji on account of faith — 
man's part in the covenant. For if they who are of laiv 
he heirs, faith — the term of the covenant — is made void, 
and the promise — the term of the covenant on God's 
part — is made nidi. Again : I do not set aside the grace 
of God — manifested in giving the Abrahamic covenant of 
mercy — for if justification is through laiv — as you Jews 
suppose, instead of through faith, the proper term or con- 
dition in the covenant — theji Christ — whom God promised 
as his part in the covenant — died in vain. We arrive, 
therefore, at this conclusion, both legally and Scripturally 
correct, to which, also, the apostle came, that if the term 
of a covenant is broken, the covenant itself is broken; 
and the one breaking it has no right or title to any of the 
blessings or benefits promised therein from the other party 
to it, which he would be entitled to had he kept the term 
which the covenant required him to keep. This very same 
principle is recognized in all agreements between two 
parties in civil law, where verbal contracts and articles of 
agreement exist between them, which contracts and arti- 
cles are really, and in their nature, covenants between the 
parties. In all such instances the law aims to make the 
party to the covenant, which breaks the term, pay the 



Arg. I.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 23 



cost of suit. Hence it is that many religionists make a 
grand error, involving the soul in eternal consequences. 
This I say with due respect to the opinions of others. 
Those who teach and believe that all men will finally be 
saved, irrespective of moral character and faith, must ex- 
cept all unbelievers, at least, as to number, a very respect- 
able class indeed. For God will deal with them as cove- 
nant-breakers. One of the characters whom St. Paul 
represents God as giving ''over to a reprobate mind," is 
a " covenant-breaker." Rom. i, 31. He does this because 
Christ for such has died in vaiyi. Those, too, who style 
themselves Christians, who seek for justification from 
all sins by uniting water-baptism with faith and repent- 
ance, as an absolute condition of their acceptance with 
God, as if baptism was a part of the condition of the 
Abrahamic covenant, are like the- Jew — they do not com- 
ply with the term which God proposed and established ; 
but as the Jew complied with the works of the law, as a 
substitute for faith, so do they bring water-baptism and 
introduce it as absolutely necessary ; that is to say, as a 
substituted condition of justification, and thereby they 
" frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness — justi- 
fication — came by " water-baptism, '' then Christ is dead 
in vain." The moralist, also, is in the same predicament 
who expects favor from God, as a passport into everlast- 
ing life, on account of his morality, who brings this to 
God as a substitute for the term in the covenant of grace. 
Such a plea God can not receive. The man who supposes 
that he or any portion of the human race has been abso- 
lutely and unconditionally elected to eternal life by means 
of a decree, is equally mistaken. For such a decree 
would run counter to the covenant in which God offers 
salvation to man on the condition that he believe in God. 
Such a decree of eternal election and reprobation on the 
part of our wise and merciful Creator, would be equiva- 
lent to, he himself not indeed making null his own plan 



24 



REVIEW OE WESLEYAN PEREECTION. [Part I. 



of saving man in a covenant, and treating him as a moral 
agent, by the use of an arbitrary decree from all eternity, 
but in its very nature it must exclude the idea of the 
covenant of grace, on the condition of faith on the part 
of lost man, ever having been made. The doctrines, 
therefore, of arhitrary grace and- free grace are incon- 
sistent with themselves ; hence, one of the systems must 
be rejected wholly. If we renounce the free-grace system, 
we renounce the Abrahamic covenant ; and since no living 
man can conceive of Christ as the Savior of man outside 
of or apart from this covenant, in rejecting it we reject 
Christ forever, and thereby salvation is " nipped in the 
bud We must, therefore, refuse the arbitrary decree 
of grace, if it be lawful to call it grace, since it carries 
off our Savior entirely, and " we wot not what is become 
of him." It is very conclusive, then, that all such re- 
ligionists, by breaking the condition of the covenant of 
grace, in which alone we have Christ offered, by that very 
act break the covenant itself, and God has no where else, 
in all his Word, offered salvation to men. Such persons, 
therefore, by breaking the covenant in any way, directly 
through unbelief, neglect, or substitution of its terms, 
have no Christ at all. They, so to speak, ^i^^-Christ 
themselves, they uncovenant themselves, and if ever saved, 
must be saved by some other means — some other Savior 
than Christ, for Christ they have not. To them he is 
" dead in vain." They have " frustrated the grace of 
God." But out of the covenant of grace they are undone, 
even if we look for another ; for " other foundation can 
no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 
Hence, " he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
life — because he fills the condition of the Abrahamic cove- 
nant: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see 
life — because he does not fill the condition of the same 
covenant — ^but the wrath of God abideth on him" — Christ 
for him died "in vain," and there is no Lamb to bear away 



Arg. I.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 25 

his sins. The burden of the Gospel, as preached to 
Abraham and to us, is summed up in the message of 
Christ to his disciples : " Go ye into all the world and 
preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believelh — 
that fills the term of the covenant — and is baptized — as a 
fruit or sign of his faith — shall be saved : but he that be- 
lieveth not — that does not fill the term of the covenant — 
shall be damned." As in the days of Abraham, he who 
was uncircumcised, who kept not the covenant sign — 

G(ppay~tda rjiq df/.aLoau'^rjq ruareioq. proof of justification 071 ac- 
count of faith, Rom. iv, 11 — was cut ofi" from his people, 
because " he hath broken r)iy covenant,^' so is it now, " he 
that helieveili not shall he damned.^' While we see, there- 
fore, on the one hand, the eternal loss of the unbeliever, 
of whatever order he may be, it all amounts to the same 
thing ; namely, the breaking of the covenant, the conse- 
quent privation of Christ as a personal sacrifice, and the 
eternal loss of the soul. Let him that readeth understand. 
On the other hand, we see that by complying with the 
condition of the covenant, to obtain remission of sins, the 
covenant stands, God is pledged, Christ is given, and 
through him we have justification, and at the same mo- 
ment regeneration and " eternal life." " He that be- 
lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life." John iii, 36. 
Abraham " believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him 
for righteousness." Here the tug of war begins. To 
what extent was this "righteousness" — justification? 
Was it an entire sanctification of the soul — taking this 
phrase as men have used it — or were there still remain- 
ing, in the soul of Abraham, the roots of sin, like a field 
full of stumps, which roots should spring up again in the 
heart of the patriarch, or perhaps in after years be de- 
stroyed entirely by means of the whole or entire sanctifi- 
cation of his heart ? In other words, was the regenerated 
state of Abraham's soul a sinless state? Was sin re- 
maining in him still, in part, so as to require him to be 

3 



26 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



" wholly sanctified/' as some express it ? We hold, in 
accordance with the proposition, which we started out to 
prove, that Abraham's regeneration was a sinless state. 
This we deduce from several considerations arising from 
the fact already explained and proved, which fact is, that 
Abraham performed His part in the covenant, and so 
stood in covenant favor with God. 

1. The first deduction is, that God must, as the other 
party to the covenant, perform nis part because the 
patriarch, in believing, had done his. (a) The truth of 
God, as set forth in his promise, is some evidence to us 
that he must, consistently with his divine character, give to 
Abraham, in his regeneration, a soul enth^ely sinless. The 
promise to Abraham at this time was, Look now toward 
heaven, and tell [Hebrew number] the stars if thou be able 
to number them : and he said unto him. So shall thy seed 
be." Here is a promise based on the truth of Him who 
is not a man that he should lie." Man's promise may 
fail — God's can not. (h) The oath of God had virtually 
been given ; for when Abraham offered up his son Isaac 
the Lord said unto him, "Because thou hast done this 
thing, , . . I will multiply thy seed as the stars of 
heaven."" Now, as Abraham's ofi'ering up Isaac was a 
proof of his faith, whereby that faith was " made per- 
fect" — James ii, 22 — so the oath of the Lord, because 
Abraham had made the ofi'ering, was a proof to him that 
his spiritual seed, promised in the original promise on 
which he believed in God, would be as the stars in number. 
That is to say, because Abraham confirmed his faith by 
works, or showed his faith by the outward act, so did the 
Lord confirm his part in the covenant with an oath. But 
as Abraham's work did not make him any more pure, as 
to soul, than when he first beheved, but simply showed 
that he had held fast his profession, so the oath of the 
Lord showed that he was still determined to do his part 
in the covenant as when first made ; and so Abraham 



Arg. I.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



27 



confirms liis faith by the deed, and the Lord confirms his 
own part with an oath. From this we may see that, from 
the beginning of their covenant rehation, God's purpose 
to do his whole part in the compact, in case Abraham did 
his, was as good as confirmed by a promise and an oath. 
These are what St. Paul refers to when he says, " God, 
willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise 
the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, 
that by two immutable things, [the promise and the oath,] 
in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have 
strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold 
upon the hope set before us." Heb. vi, 17. Our de- 
duction, therefore, is, that if there is a perfect state of 
purity of heart or sinlessness in this life, Abraham had 
it when he believed and received justification, because it 
was both promised and, we may say, sworn to by the 
Almighty. 

2. Our second deduction, as to Abraham's sinless state 
when justified, is. That on God's part Christ is given, 
(a) The history and genealogy of Chi^ist show this. 
That he was a descendant of Abraham through Isaac, 
Jacob, Judah, etc., Matthew and Luke both show, giving 
his genealogy. Now, since Christ came through Isaac, 
who was miraculously born, and thus the evidence given 
of God's promise being fulfilled while Abraham lived, a 
mere partial deliverance from sin in his case is surely 
incompatible with the genealogy and birth of an all-suffi- 
cient Savior, (b) The language of the promise, " In thee 
shall all families of the earth be blessed," sufficiently 
proves that Abraham had Christ, to whom alone it can 
refer. And Christ said, Abraham rejoiced to see my 
day," etc. 

3. Christ was the sacrifice for the sins of the patriarch 
and those of his posterity. 

4. Christ is an all-sufficient sacrifice, (a) " His blood 
cleanseth us from all sin." (b) Those who hold to 



28 



BEYIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



" entire sanctification," as such, agree to this efficacy in 
his blood. 

5. It follows, therefore, since Abraham had Christ, in 
whose blood we have redemption, that he had a sinless soul 
in the regenerated state, for he had all the benefits of 
Christ ; if so, the redemption which is in his blood ; but 
his blood cleanseth from all sin," and this is all that 
entire sanctificationists can claim ; and indeed this quota- 
tion from St. John is one of their proof texts. 

6. But Abraham's moral condition was simply justifica- 
tion, {a) The account of the matter, as given by Moses, 
is that his faith was counted to him for justification, which 
is the meaning of the Hebrew word translated righteous- 
ness," and the Septuagint has dr/.atoffuurj^^ — dikaiosynen — 
the same as found so often in the New Testament, where 
it means justification, (h) St. Paul, when reasoning on 
the doctrine of justification by faith, in his ably-argued 
Epistle to the Romans, constantly treats of that one sub- 
ject, as the verb to justify and the noun justification 
show, which he there employs. In this Epistle he speaks 
of Abraham and the covenant made with him, and quotes 
the very passage — Gen. xv, 6 — where his conversion or 
justification is recorded, (c) He also mentions the bless- 
edness of the one to whom God does not impute sin as 
mentioned by David, so that we have apostolic authority 
for saying that David spoke of a man simply in a just- 
ified relation, {d) But regeneration is acknowledged to 
be the work wrought in every soul the moment it is 
justified; therefore, according to Moses and St. Paul, 
Abraham was in the regenerated state, but David says 
that to such God does not impute siyi. Hence regenera- 
tion is a sinless state of the soul. I mean by this that 
the work is complete in the soul and no sin left there — 
the blood of Chi'ist has been applied which " cleanseth 
us from ALL sin." "Blessed is the man to whom the 
Lord doth not impute sin." Now, if the Bible be the 



Arg. I.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



29 



standard in this argument, the conclusion looks very 
plausible that the proposition in hand is .quite correct. 
But let us take the hypothesis, 

7. That there is sin yet remaining in the heart of one 
"who is regenerated. If sin remained in Abraham while he 
was justified and regenerated, then, (1.) It was by default 
of one or the other of the parties in the covenant. If the 
default was on the part of God, then he either would not 
or could not save from all sin in the moment of regenera- 
tion; if the former, he breaks his promise and virtually 
his oath, which w^ould be revolting to our views of his 
holy character. If the latter, that he could not, we im- 
peach his almighty power. (2.) The default, then, must 
have been on the part of Abraham, who failed to believe 
to the full extent. Then, (a) God in recognizing him as 
the subject of grace, on the supposition that he exercised 
only a partial degree of faith, virtually broke the term or 
condition of the covenant himself, in blessing him in part, 
independent of Abraham doing his part; and so he, him- 
self, repudiated the covenant, which can not be a cove- 
nant except its terms are observed by both the parties to 
it. Rev. Richard Watson very sensibly says: "It could 
not be a covenant unless there were terms — somethino: 
required, as well as something promised or given — duties 
to be performed, as well as blessings to be received.^'* 
Therefore, the impeachment, as before, lies against God; 
and if he can recognize man in a degree for a mere par- 
tial faith, on this hypothesis, why not wholly recognize 
him without any observance of the covenant term, at all, 
and let the doctrine of Universalism prevail? (b) A 
partial blessing, granted on God's part, in answer to a 
partial faith, is inconsistent with our received views of 
God as an adorable Being who demands the whole heart. 
When God proposed to save man, who was lost and 
fallen, on the condition of faith, it is understood that 

* Theological Dictionaiy, Article Coyenant. 



30 



EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



approaching him there is no self-righteousness to recom- 
mend us to him. 

" In my hand no price I bring ; 
Simply to the cross I cling," 

is the doctrine of the Bible expressed by the poet. The 
meaning is, that Christ has suffered for us, in our room 
and stead, and if we believe it we are saved. The debt is 
'paid for us. 

"Believe in him who died for thee ; 
And, sure as he hath died. 
Thy debt is paid, thy soul is free, 
And thou art justified." 

The words of Mr. W. P. Burgess on the atonement, as 
quoted by Mr. Carvosso, page 229, are very cogent and to 
the point here. . He says : " The merit and atonement of 
the Savior are the price by which all the blessings of 
the new covenant may be purchased; they constitute a 
FULL equivalent; for their value is inestimable and in- 
finite. Whoever, therefore, approaches the footstool of 
Jehovah, trusting solely in the merit and atonement of 
Christ, ijays down the FULL price for every blessing that 
he claims, and may expect it on the ground of justice. If, 
in our dealing with our fellow-creatures, we bring a full 
equivalent in our hands, and pay down a fair price for 
any commodity which we need, it would be injustice to 
withhold it. Even so when we ask in the name of Jesus, 
for full redemption and entire purity, justice requires that 
our prayers should he heard, and our petitions granted. So 
that if God be just, he will not only pardon our sin, hut 
cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Thus, then, we see 
the justice of God in furnishing us with strong encour- 
agement, and emboldening us to ask and receive every 
blessing purchased for us by the adorable Savior." Ac- 
cording to the theology taught in this quotation, all of 
which I think is correct, when Abraham believed in Christ 
his debt to Divine justice was paid, and God, as a just 



Arc. I.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



31 



Being, in accordance with his own bargain or covenant — 
for this is the sense of it — must give him a full equivalent, 
which equivalent he did receive when regenerated, unless 
Christ did not satisfy Divine justice when he died for 
man, which we are not prepared to receive. (3.) Still 
reasoning on our hypothesis, if sin remained, in part, in 
Abraham after he believed, how is he ever to be cleansed 
from all that remaining sin, so as to pass from the re- 
generated state to what some call the state of entire 
sanctification ? (ci) If he believed once and did not ob- 
tain entire sanctification, as such, may he not fail again 
on the same ground? (h) If there was a falling short of 
entire sanctification the first time, what conceivable chance 
is there, in the nature of the case, for that great blessing 
being obtained the next time, or on any other subsequent 
approach to God? (c) Since the advocates of entire sanc- 
tification, as they regard it, hold that faith is the means 
by which it is to be obtained, as well as the means by 
which we obtain regeneration ; and since faith is the term, 
on man's part, in the Abrahamic covenant, in which cov- 
enant alone justification and regeneration, as the only 
spiritual blessings of the Gospel, are found, what conceiv- 
able hope is there for any further blessing in the same 
covenant, unless we suppose that God is changeable and 
will do more at one time than at another under the sa7ne 
circumstances, in the ^me covenant, and by the same 
means ? 

8. But Scripture proves that Abraham had perfect faith 
when he was justified, and why should sin then remain 
in him? 

When he afterward ofi*ered up Isaac, his faith by that 
act " was made perfect," says James. He did not mean 
that his faith previously to this w^as imperfect, in the sense 
of a merely partial faith, but that Abraham showed that 
he had from the moment of his justification a perfect faith; 
for he says, in a preceding verse, " Show me thy faith 



32 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my 
works." Christ taught the same when he said : " By their 
fruits ye shall know them." So the circumcision of Abra- 
ham, fourteen years after his justification, did not make 
him any more pure in heart, did not intensify his faith 
any, in the sense of a more complete compliance with the 
covenant condition, but it was simply for "A seal — or 
proof — of the righteousness of the faith which he had 
yet being uncircumcised." This teaches that his faith was 
the same thing all the time, and not in the least falhng 
short of the requirement of the covenant; hence it is 
called THE faith. 

• Therefore, since Abraham had a perfect faith, when 
justified, God in justice must have given him a perfect 
salvation, but that salvation was simply regeneration; 
hence regeneration is a perfect work, and if perfect, then 
SINLESS, and our proposition is true. 



ARGUMENT II. 
We continue to argue. That regeneration, which 

ALWAYS ACCOMPANIES JUSTIFICATION, IS A SINLESS STATE 
OF THE SOUL. 

If SO, there can not be, as some suppose, " the seed of 
all sin" or the ^'former corruptions" remaining. 

1. Acts xiii, 38, 39 : " Be it known unto you, therefore, 
men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto 
you the forgiveness of sins : and by him all that believe 
are justified from all things, from which they could not be 
justified by the law of Moses." Here the behever is said 
to be justified from all things^ as to which the law of 
Moses failed. And if " from all things,'' why should we 
beheve and teach an entire work of grace in the heart, to 



Aeg. II.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



33 



be obtained at some indefinite subsequent period to justifi- 
cation, when this text tells us that justification frees us 
from all things ? Rev. Richard Watson is quite clear on 
this subject. He says, " The justification extends to all 
past sins ; that is, to all guilt contracted previously to 
that time at which the act of justification takes place. In 
respect to this, it is, while it remains in force, a MOST 

FULL, PERFECT, AND ENTIRE ABSOLUTION FROM WRATH. 

*All manner of sins' is then forgiven. The pardon 
which is granted is a 'justification,' not merely from 
some things, from many things, from most things, but 
from *ALL things.' Acts xiii, 39. God does not justify 
us, or pardon our innumerable ofienses by degrees, but 
AT ONCE. As by the law of works he is cursed who 
'continueth not in all things' which that law enjoined, 
so he who is truly absolved by the Gospel is cleared 
from ALL and every thing which before stood against 
him ; and ' there is NO condemnation to them that are 
in Christ J esus.' 

This language, we presume, is beyond objection, since 
it is the substance of Scripture. Yet the inquiring mind 
is ready to ask the question. If regeneration be a " con- 
comitant of justification," as the above-quoted author 
says,t and if regeneration consists in a purifying of the 
soul by the Holy Spirit, since the word concomitant means 
an " attendant " or " companion," and since justification, 
one of the " concomitants," is such a thorough work of its 
kind as the capital letters in the above quotation indicate, 
how is it that regeneration, the concomitant of this thor- 
ough justification, should not be an entire purifying of the 
heart? If justification be an entire absolution from wrath; 
if it extends to all past sins ; if all manner of sins is for- 
given ; if it is a most full and perfect absolution ; if it is 
not by degrees, but at once, and if it be a work for man 

* Theological Dictionary, Article Justification. 
t Institutes, Vol. ii, Part Second, chap. xxiv. 



34 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. [Part I. 



and 171 his favor, while regeneration is a real work done in 
the man, why should one be thus thorough, although merely 
" not in or upon man, hut for him and in his favor J' as 
Mr. Watson says, and regeneration, the work in the soul, 
be partial ; in which regenerated state he also says, The 
former corruptions of the heart may remain, and strive for 
the mastery f * Is there not, in the natui-e of the case, 
something unreasonable in this doctrine ? It is said, by 
Mr. Watson, that "no man is justified without being re- 
generated and adopted;" and, this being so, is it not a 
manifest inconsistency to say, since the two graces are 
concomitants one of the other, that the work done for the 
man — justification — should be thorough, and its concomi- 
tant done in him — regeneration — should be so imperfect as 
that " the former corruptions of the heart should remain 
and strive for the mastery The doctrine of " corrup- 
tions" and "the seed of all sin" remaining in the heart 
of an "adopted" child of God seems to us not only an 
incongruity, but absolutely inconceivable.f 

2. Col. ii, 13: "And you, being dead in your sins and 
the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened to- 
gether with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." 
Three things are observable in this text. 1. That the 

* Institutes. Yol. ii, Part Second, chap. sxiv. 

t A long time after writing tlie first four arguments of this Review — and 
indeed after writing the whole work — in which we hare denied the exist- 
ence of sin in a regenerated soul, the "Repository of Holiness " for 
January, 1865, " A Religious Mokthlt," published in Springfield, Illinois, 
edited by Revs, John P. Brooks and Milton L. Haney, falls into our hand. 
It contains an article headed : " The Twofold Work of Saltation, by 
Bishop D. W. Clark." In this article the Bishop speaks first of justifica- 
tion correctly, and in the usual way. He says: "Justification merely 
affects the forensic or legal relations of the individual." In the second 
place he speaks of the inward work connected with justification, and agrees 
with us exactly in denying sin in a regenerated soul. We think, however, 
that he has unfortunately used entire sanctification," " sanctification," and 
" Christian perfection," where he should have used the term regeneration. 
He says : " Entire sancafication implies an entire cleansing of the soul 
from its moral defilement, and the plenary endowment of it with all the 
graces of the Spirit of God. And why may not the work of sanctification 



Arg. II.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



35 



Colossians, previous to their embracing Christianity, were 
dead in sins and the uncircumcision of their flesh. 2. That 
Christ had quickened them together with himself before 
the writing of this Epistle. 3. That he had forgiven 
them ALL their trespasses. The question now to be de- 
cided is, whether the moral condition of the Colossians 
was that alone of a regenerated state, or have we any 
evidence that their condition implied, when the apostle 
wrote to them, that they had attained unto entire sancti- 
fication as such? 

Let us bring out the three points mentioned and com- 
pare them with the Epistle to the Ephesians, which, in 
language, agrees very much with the one to the Colos- 
sians. In the second chapter it is said : " And you hath 
he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins : 
wherein in time past ye walked according to the course 
of this world, according to the prince of the power of the 
air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobe- 
dience : among whom also we all had our conversation in 
times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires 
of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the 
children of wrath even as others." Now let it be observed, 
that here are the first and second points of resemblance 
between the two Churches; namely, the original condition 

be as broad and as perfect as that of justification? Indeed, is it not mar- 
velous that they who believe justification may be absolute, complete, should 
deny the possibility of the same completeness in the work of sanctification ? 
Hath not He, who alone can justify, the same power to sanctify ? And 
hath he not promised it in the same latitude and fullness ? This we under- 
stand to be the standard of attainment, termed in the Scriptares, and justly 
regarded by many as Christian perfection — full and perfect justification, 
and full or perfect sanctification. We know no other definite and absolute 
perfection to which the Christian will ever attain, either in this life or 
THE life to come. The growth and enlargement of his spiritual powers 
will be illimitable and eternal. But this meets the essential requirements 
in order to salvation; the sentence of death is revoked; the defilement 
that unfits for heaven is washed away. The truth of the declaration is 
attested, * He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from 
all unrighteousness.' " It is very convenient to have the Bishop on our side. 



36 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



of both was that of being dead in trespasses and sins, as 
the first point ; the second is, that Christ had quickened 
each Church and made it alive with himself, and that this 
same passage will show that the Ephesians were in a 
regenerated state, without any reference to entire sanctifi- 
cation as such, is conclusive from the eighth and ninth 
verses : For by grace are ye saved through faith ; and 
that" — namely, that ye are saved by grace through faith — 
"not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, 
lest any man should boast." Here the state of being 
quickened together with Christ is called by the apostle a 
salvation — a salvation through faith — a salvation 7iot of 
works, lest any man should boast. All this is, in sub- 
stance, the very same language which the apostle uses in 
speaking of justification, wherein he says that God might 
" be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 
"Where is boasting then ? It is excluded. By what law ? 
Of works? Nay; but by the law of faith." Eom. iii, 27. 
In this connection St. Paul is constantly speaking of God's 
plan of justifying men ; this is seen, not even to mention 
the context and the scope of his argument, because he 
continually uses the very word to justify, and he shows 
that to exclude boasting it is a blessing obtained by faith 
and not by works. This, therefore, decides the condition 
of the Ephesians, who had been dead in trespasses and 
sins, but who had been quickened, which quickening we 
are taught was through faith, and was a salvation — not of 
works so as to prevent boasting. Therefore, since regen- 
eration is the concomitant of justification, the quickening 
and the justifying of the soul; that is, the quickening 
and the regenerating of it are the same, the two Epistles 
being compared. But in the Epistle to the Colossians, 
the apostle speaks of a forgiving of all trespasses, 
and in that to the Romans he speaks of a death to sin. 
Therefore, justification includes a forgiving of all tres- 
passes or sins; and if all sins are forgiven God doth 



Aeg. II.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



37 



NOT impute any. Why, then, should man impute it ? 
Why should man say that sin is only suspended^ not de- 
stroyed? Why say, "The former corruptions of the 
heart may remain and strive for the mastery ?" Observe, 
St. Paul does not say that the jpenalty due to sin is not 
imputed to the justified, which would mean complete just- 
ification in the abstract, but he says that sin, itself, is n-ot 
imputed which must mean absolute sinlessness in the 
soul. Sin in a regenerated soul seems impossible: for, 
if the angels in heaven have NO sin imputed to them, 
their absolute blessedness is therein implied; and so, as 
complete purity they have as we are able to conceive of. 
But as to the passage under consideration, in the second 
chapter of Colossians, we have still more evidence to 
show, that the blessing of regeneration is as thorough a 
work of grace as is conceivable and obtainable in this 
life. For he says, "In whom also ye are circumcised, 
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off 
the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of 
Christ." Now, in the Epistle to the Romans, where the 
apostle is in a fixed argument with the Jew, on the doc- 
trine of justification by faith, he says, "He is a Jew 
which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the 
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is 
not of men but of God." From this we learn that the 
circumcision which Paul mentions in Colossians "without 
hands," he defines, in the Epistle to the Romans, to be 
that " of the heart, in the spirit." This constitutes a Jew 
indeed and in totum-. But this was all the blessing, as to 
the heart, concerning which we have any evidence to say 
that Abraham ever had, and he was a Jew and the father 
of all the faithful. And if justification — including regen- 
eration — the circumcision made without hands, in the 
spirit, does not mean an absolutely pure state, and the 
highest attainment of Divine grace in the soul, required 
of man on earth, then Abraham himself did not receive 



38 



REVIEW OF WESLETAX PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



what some call entire sanctification. We admit that God 
appeared to him about fourteen years after his justifica- 
tion, and said to him, "Walk before me, and be thou 
perfect." This objection will receive proper attention 
hereafter. 

We further observe, as to this circumcision of which St. 
Paul speaks, that among the Jews the circumcision of the 
flesh was the sign of all that purity of heart which God 
demanded of them; and as that ordinance gives place to 
water-baptism in the Christian dispensation, so, when we 
are baptized, we take upon us, thereby, that which is the 
sign of all the purity which God gives to the heart by the 
Holy Spirit. Xow, justification by faith, with its " con- 
comitant," was the circumcision of the heart to the Jew; 
that is, it was and included all that purity which God re- 
quhed of him, and of which his circumcision in the flesh 
was the sign. So, also, when we, as Christians, are just- 
ified by faith, we receive that perfect purity of heart by 
the Holy Spirit shed upon us " abundantly,'' which our 
water-baptism, as its sign, represents. For water-baptism 
does represent, in the Christian's creed, not a partial^ but a 
perfect blessing; because it represents the perfect cleans- 
ing of the heart by the Holy Spirit sent by the Father 
and Son for the manifest purpose of making men pure — 
jjerfedly and entirely so — as a part of his work. Hence, 
when we receive the baptism of the Spu'it, we are, at that 
moment, which is the moment of our regeneration, as to 
heart, as f ree from sin and as imre Chi'istians as Abraham 
was a perfect and pure Jew. For the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, which always accompanies justification by 
faith, is to us the circumcision of the heart as well as to 
Abraham. The word chcumcision signifying, in the Jew- 
ish sense, "the removing of the filth of the flesh," was 
evidently used by the apostle to convey to the Jewish 
mind the purifying of the heart. The word baptism of 
the heart would be its equivalent in the Christian's phra- 



Arc. TI.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



39 



seology. Both would mean regeneration, because circum- 
cision and baptism are the signs, in the two dispensations 
respectively, of the one thing, namely, regeneration. 
That water-baptism does not represent entire sanctifica- 
tion, considered as a subsequent blessing to regeneration, 
but merely regeneration, is evident from facts which the 
advocates of the former will themselves acknowledge. For 
in our form of " The Ministration of Baptism to such 
AS ARE of Riper Years," the Scripture referred to and 
quoted, is the conversation of our Lord with Nicodemus, 
where all admit that the discourse is about regeneration 
and not about entire sanctification, as such. Also, in 
Article XVII of our " Religion," the article " Of Baptism " 
is thus defined, and in our faith set forth: "Baptism is 
not only a sign of profession, and mark of difi'erence, 
whereby Christians are distinguished from those that are 
not baptized, but it is also a sign of regeneration or 
the new birth." Therefore, ''regeneration or the new 
birth" is a sinless state of the soul, since our baptism 
prefigures or represents such a state. But that state is 
regeneration. If we say that regeneration is not a sinless 
state of the soul, we must take the ground that such a 
state is not represented by our water-baptism, which would 
be contrary to Scripture. Rom. vi, 2, 3. But waiving 
this point, apparent to all, we will proceed. This same 
blessing of regeneration St. Paul calls a death to sin. 
''For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in 
God. When Christ who is our life shall appear, then 
shall ye also appear with him in glory." All this time 
the apostle is still speaking to the same people under the 
idea of the same blessing of regeneration, which he called 
in the second chapter a being raised with him through 
the faith of the operation of God. Then in the third 
chapter he says, "If ye be risen with Christ, seek those 
things which are above " — still he uses the same language, 
calling the blessing a moral resurrection in the soul ; after 



40 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



giving them directions how to live, as to outward acts and 
deportment, telling them to set their affections on things 
above, and not on things on the earth, he gives the reason 
why — not because ye have been blessed in part, and 
should therefore walk as becometh a partial salvation, but 
because ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in 
God. This is a death to sin. What can express more? 
Where is the sin yet remaining ? Is not this a sinless 
state ? " The death or destruction of sin " is what Dr. 
Peck holds entire sanctification to be, as it respects the 
inward work. (Perfection Abridged, page 38.) But the 
apostle shows further that they are now ready for heaven, 
and so promises that when Christ shall come, who was 
then their Life, they shall appear with him in glory. 
Here is a full promise of eternal glory, without so much 
as exhorting them once to seek for enth^e sanctification, 
as such, but he every-where throughout the Epistle ex- 
horts to obedience of the moral law; not to seek a more 
thorough work in the heart, but to keep what they had, 
by observance of moral precepts as a sign of that faith 
which they already possessed. 

3. Gal. ii, 20, 21 : "I am crucified with Christ : never- 
theless, I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me : and the 
life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the 
Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I 
do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness 
came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." This lan- 
guage is susceptible of a different sense, for instead of 
reading and being pointed as above given, it is perhaps 
better to read the clause : C«> ^£ obxhi kyd) without the 
comma (,) after de, and translate it — and I live no longer. 
We offer two reasons for giving the passage this turn. 
(1.) St. Paul wishes to convey the idea that Saul of Tarsus 
was dead, and that one spiritual Paul the apostle now 
lived in his stead, and the spiritual life being prominent in 
the mind of the wi'iter, he pla<;ed Cw, zo, I live, first in the 



Arg. II.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 41 



sentence, so as to make it emphatic. (2.) Good authority 
agrees with the change in the reading as already made. 
Mr. Wesley gives it : " And I live no longer." Also Mr. 
Benson. So the apostle puts in this clause to show the 
reader that what he meant in the former clause by being 
crucified with Christ, was that he was now totally dead, 
that is, as the wicked Saul of Tarsus, but Christ liveth 
in me." From this we learn that the apostle died a com- 
plete death to sin, so much so, that he said he no longer 
lived, and that, thus, his soul had become the unrivaled 
temple of Christ, and wholly dedicated to him, to the ex- 
clusion of all sin from the heart, and that he himself lived 
by faith of the Son of God. 

The question again arises — was this state of grace, in 
which St. Paul was, regeneration or entire sanctification, 
considered as a greater, more advanced, and thorough 
work of grace? Most emphatically the answer may be 
given, that it was in no other sense that the apostle 
intended to be understood, than in that of regeneration. 
Because immediately before these words, which are his 
own Christian experience, he is faithfully arguing with the 
Jew that, *'by the works of the law shall no flesh be just- 
ified." Then having told this much of his experience 
in the Divine favor, when argument with the Jew seems 
to fail, with candor he relates what God had wrought in 
his own soul; and he apparently rejoices in it. Then in 
the very next verse he says, "I do not frustrate the 
grace of God: for if righteousness [which ought to be 
rendered justification'] came by the law, then Christ is 
dead in vain." Now, how clear it is, when the apostle 
states that he was crucified with Christ, that Christ lived 
in him, and that he lived by faith, his object was to tell 
the Jew how good, how precious, a perfect state of grace 
in Christ was : then for his own part he would not render 
null the grace of God ; for, if this gracious state of Divine 
favor in which I now am, summed up with all its good 



42 



EETIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



qualities in tlie one ■^■ord jusiification, came by obedience 
to law, then Christ is dead in vain. If St. Paul here 
meant in his experience a complete state of grace in the 
heart called entire sanctification, as a more excellent bless- 
ing than merely a regenerated state, why did he not tell 
the Jew in plain words that there was such a state, and 
urge him up to it, that he might seek and obtain it ? Why 
did he occupy his Epistle in strong argument about a state 
so comparatively low in Christian attainment as the justi- 
fied implies, if there was a higher to be obtained? ^Miy 
did he say so much about justification throughout all his 
epistles, and so httle about entire sanctification, as such, 
if there be such a state apart from justification, and which 
some regard as absolutely essential to eternal fife ? Why 
should he tell how justification is obtained, describe its 
fruits, declare its joys, urge its necessity, and linger in its 
hopes, and never perhaps in a whole epistle drop one word 
sufficiently strong to assure us of a higher blessing than 
that embraced in justification ? Why did he make use of 
the very strongest language possible to express his own 
moral relation to God, immediately in the midst of his 
argument in favor of justification and regeneration, unless 
he designed to teach, or rather illustrate in his own ex- 
perience, barely a justified and regenerated condition? 
Pinally, when he is so faithful to tell of the justification 
of Abraham, why does he not tell us, at least once, of his 
entire sanctification, as such ? Or did he mean to teach 
the less and nearlect the greater blessinor? These thina^s 
fairly considered seem to imply that the apostle -was 
speaking of a sinJcss state. But fui'ther, that St. Paul 
meant a justified relation to God and a regenerated state, 
alone, in saying that he ivas crucified with CJirist, is incon- 
trovertible by a comparison of two passages in this same 
Epistle. The first is chap, iii, 29 : "And if ye be Christ's, 
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the 
promise.'' This verse teaches that the justified man 



Arg. II.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



43 



belongs to Christ. The second is chap, v, 24 : ^' And they 
that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the alfec- 
tions and lusts." Now, no reasonable person will for one 
moment deny that to he Christ's, as stated in the former 
passage, means the justified relation, which is very clear, 
because such are called "Abraham's seed," and so are 
justified through a compliance with the same covenant in 
which Abraham was justified; but such are said to be 
crucified: therefore, the apostle was merely justified and 
regenerated when he said, " I am crucified with Christ ; 
and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." And to say 
that St. Paul had sin remaining in him still, and that he 
had not yet attained unto entire purity of heart, is, first, 
to trifle with the words of inspiration which have been 
employed to convey to us the Divine will ; for, the word 
crucify does not mean to kill in part, and then to let the 
subject go, but to kill entirely hj that act: so the apostle 
used the figure in its proper sense, and not in a partial 
sense, which sense it never had. Nor are we left alone 
to dwell on the meaning of one word merely, but the 
apostle explains himself beyond question in the next 
clause when he says, "And I no longer live." Which 
horn of the dilemma will the objector take? If he deny 
the complete work of grace in the apostle — I mean a sin- 
less regeneration — he denies his testimony, which is, "I 
no longer live." If he say the justified man has ^Hhe 
former corruptions of the heart, which ^'strive for the 
mastery,^' and that he must have these wholly destroyed 
by an entire sanctification, as such, he denies that " they 

THAT ARE ChRIST'S HAVE CRUCIFIED THE FLESH WITH THE 

AFFECTIONS AND LUSTS." Now, as to this language of the 
apostle, just quoted in capitals, I hold that no mortal man, 
who has ever yet wielded a pen on paper, in proof of en- 
tire sanctification, so called, can write a stronger, more 
expressive, or more strikingly clear sentence to express 
the sinlessness of the human soul; for, the word flesh 



44 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I 



implies the whole fountain of human iniquity, and the two 
words affections and lusts imply the streams proceeding 
from that corrupt fountain, so that the apostle, having in 
the former verses of the same chapter presented the whole 
catalogue of crimes under the title of the "works of the 
FLESH," now saying that this flesh and its affections and 
lusts are crucified, tells the whole story, and beggars all 
human thought and language to describe a more perfect, a 
more sinless, if you please, a wholly-sanctified state of the 
soul, if this be not that state. But I have proved that he 
is speaking of one who is merely justified and regenerated. 
And no device can make it appear that to crucify means to 
kill partially, and that the merely justified and regenerated 
man is Christ's, is beyond question, else were not Abra- 
ham Christ's. Hence the conclusion is, that, since these 
are facts, the regenerated soul is in a sinless state — ^his 
flesh, his affections, which were carnal, and his wicked 
lusts are now crucified. 

Again : the immediate result of regeneration is a proof 
of a sinless state. " Therefore, being justified by faith we 
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 
Before justification we are " dead in trespasses and sins," 
we walk according to the course of this wicked world, having 
our conversation in the lusts of the flesh and of the mind, 
and have no hope of heaven: but "being justified by faith 
we have peace with God." How can any sin be still re- 
maining in the heart when we are at peace with God ? 
What has God against any man when that man is at peace 
with him ? Indeed, God is pleased with such, for " with- 
out faith it is impossible to please God." Heb. xi, 6. 
But the justified have faith in God, therefore they please 
him. Can a God infinitely pure and holy be pleased with 
a man when sin is still existing in his soul? The prophet 
says, " Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and 
canst not look on iniquity." Hab. i, 13. But says the 
objector, " Sin may exist where it does not reign." Does 



arg. ii.j justification and kegeneration. 



45 



the Bible say so? Is the existence of sin in believers 
compatible with the saying of St. Paul, "They that are 
Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affections and 
lusts?'' If so, we will give up the subject. But our text 
says, " We have peace." Rebel man who before was an 
alien from God, and from the commonwealth of Israel, is 
" brought nigh " by the blood of Christ, " for he is our 
peace." The justified, and so regenerated, have peace. 
All that this passage says, Christ is to us, as the procur- 
ing cause of our peace. Where is the necessity for any 
more, in the sense of entire sanctification, to remove what 
sins are left, when it is impossible to conceive of any left, 
unless we suppose a holy God to wink at them ? The idea 
of peace being made between two parties which have been 
at variance is all that is conceivable ; if more was required 
it Avould be superfluous, and less would not be peace. 
This peace is perfect because it is "through our Lord 
Jesus Christ," who never did any thing imperfectly 
either in nature or in grace. To show that he ever did, 
where is the analogy, since every organization is perfect 
in its kind, and since what we call the unnatural may 
be only nature perverted from second causes to us 
unknown ? 

According to the term in the covenant, when any one 
believes, that moment he receives Christ as his, and he 
who says that he has any sin remaining, must either 
mean that Christ was not able or that he was not willing 
to do what God had sworn by his infinite perfection that 
he would do in answer to faith. If sin is found to strug- 
gle, and to have an existence in one to-day who was 
justified yesterday, which is most reasonable to believe 
of two alternatives concerning him — that his regeneration 
was not a sinless work, or that he has failed to live as a 
Christian should since his regeneration? Which of these 
views, all the consequences considered, would most honor 
the Divine character? 



46 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



Charles Wesley describes the justified soul exactly, 
when he says : 

" Of my Savior possessed, 

I was PERFECTLY blest, 
As if fill'd with tlie fullxess of God." 

And when the soul begins to feel sin struggling, and 
" striving for the mastery/' instead of that being the 
struggling of " sin in a believer," it is sin IN A sinner, 
and the same poet goes on to describe how it happened: 

" Ah ! where am I now ! 

When was it, or how, 
That I FELL from my heayex of grace ? 

I am BROUGHT INTO thrall ; 

I am stripp'd of my all, 
I am banish'd from Jesus's face I 

Hardly yet do I know 

How I let my Lord go, 
So insensibly starting aside ; 

When the tempter came in 

With his own subtile sin, 
And infected my spirit with pride." 

This is the only sensible and Scriptural solution of what 
some call sin in a believer; for by a believer they must 
mean one in the past.^ not in the present. 



ARGUMENT III. 

We continue to argue, That the regenerated state 
OF the SOUL IS sinless. The fourth chapter of St. Paul's 
Epistle to the Ephesians deserves our notice. Before con- 
sidering some parts of it, let us consider the moral con- 
dition of this people when the apostle wrote to them. 
There is a full and clear account given, in the nineteenth 
chapter of the Acts, of St. Paul's preaching among the 
Ephesians as a missionary. There we learn that when he 



Arg. III.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION, 47 



wrought miracles he was mocked by the Jewish exorcists. 
He was also encountered by Demetrius the silversmith, who 
made small temples, in our translation of the Testament 
called shrines, in imitation of the great goddess, the 
temple Diana of the Ephesians, which was then worshiped 
by all proconsular Asia. Demetrius had great influence 
in this extensive heathen empire. The gods which he made 
were images of their great temple — small and portable. 
Of these he kept constantly on hand a supply, in which he 
had much ''craft." In the temple Diana they held that 
there was much " magnificence." When the apostle began 
to preach that there "be no gods which are made with 
hands," Demetrius saw that his personal interest was 
about to be overthrown ; for he sold many gods both to 
the citizens at home and to foreigners. Hence he made 
a speech, with much vehemence against Paul, moving the 
superstition and the prejudice of the multitude, telling 
them that "the great goddess Diana should be despised, 
and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia 
and the world worshipeth. And when they heard these 
things they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, 
Great is Diana of the Ephesians. And the whole city was 
filled with confusion; and having caught Gains and Aris- 
tarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, 
they rushed with one accord into the theater." Notwith- 
standing all this opposition, we are taught, as to this peo- 
ple, that " fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord 
Jesus was magnified. And many that believed came and 
confessed, and showed their deeds. Many of them also 
which used curious arts, brought their books together, 
and burned them before all men; and they counted the 
price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. 
So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." Such 
is St. Luke's account, in part, of St. Paul's ministry to 
the Ephesians. Now, the "many that believed" consti- 
tuted the fruit of the apostle's labor at Ephesus. And 



48 



REVIEW OF WESLBYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



they composed the Church, with other fruits which he had 
among them, for he preached to them ''three years.'' 
Acts XX, 31. St. Paul first preached to the Ephesians 
about A. D. 54. He wrote his Epistle to them about 
A. D. 61, a period of seven years from the beginning of 
his ministry among them. But since he remained with 
them three years, he wrote his Epistle about four years 
after he left them, and during the early part of his im- 
prisonment at Rome. In order that we see the complete- 
ness of regeneration, in such a light as to exclude any 
other blessing, as necessary to the more thorough cleans- 
ing of the soul from sin, and in order to see that it 
removes all sin from the soul of every believer, it behooves 
us to examine carefully some statements found in this 
Epistle. Their history has already been mentioned in the 
book of Acts, where they are called believers. This is 
about as much as is said about them there to identify 
them as the people of God. In the beginning of the 
Epistle the apostle addresses them as saints, and as the 
faithful in Christ Jesus. In chap, i, 3, he blesses God 
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing. In 
verse 13 he says, "Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit 
of promise." In chapter ii he says, " You hath he quick- 
ened," and "by grace are ye saved through faith." 
"For ye are his workmanship in Christ Jesus." Such 
are some of the expressions which point out to us the 
complete work of the Holy Spirit on their hearts. But 
these are not all. We Avill now take up the fourth chap- 
ter, in such parts only as particularly belong to this 
argument. Yerse 1 : " I therefore, the prisoner of the 
Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation 
wherewith ye are called." Yerse 7 1 " But unto every 
one of us is given grace according to the measure of the 

*The force of the Greek word here used, because it is in the perfect tense, 
and implies a present result, is, ye have been saved in time past, and ye 
are saved yet. 



Arg. III.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



49 



gift of Christ." That the gift of Christ refers here to 
the Holy Spirit seems certain, as the eighth verse says, 
"Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high, he 
led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men." This is a 
prophecy taken from the sixty-eighth Psalm, we may say 
verbatim, where the reference is to the sending of the 
Holy Spirit by Christ after his ascension — a delightful 
prophecy indeed. Now, the apostle says that each one 
of the Ephesians, as Christians, received this grace ac- 
cording to the measure of the gift of Christ. That is to 
say, each one received the proper proportion necessary to 
make him what God required him to be in heart, for he 
was called, was quickened, was saved, was blessed, etc. 
We will now pass to verse 17 : " This I say therefore 
and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as 
other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having 
the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life 
of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of 
the blindness of their heart : who being past feeling, have 
given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all un- 
cleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned 
Christ, [when I was with you four years ago;] if so be 
that ye have heard him and have been taught by him, as 
the truth is in Jesus." Now, in translating the next three 
verses — 22, 23, and 24 — as the verbs in them are in the 
infinitive mode, and depend on the word testify in verse 
17, we must still supply the exhortation to complete and 
to make clear the translation. Then verse 22 w411 read : 
This I say and testify in the Lord] that ye put off con- 
cerning the former conversation the old man, which is 
corrupt according to the deceitful lusts. [And I testify 
in the Lord] that ye be renewed in the spirit of your 
mind." The 23d verse — be renewed in tJie spirit of your 
mind — we must be careful not to regard as an exhortation 
to seek the regeneration of the soul, or the entire sancti- 
fication of it, as such; for, regeneration, as above shown. 



50 



EETIEW OF WESLEY.^' PERFECTION. [Paet I. 



they already liad ^lien St. Paul Tvrote to them. Besides 
this, the phrase -^jsutmrt roh vodc, the spirit of the mind, 
does not mean that part of the moral man Tvhich Tve say 
undergoes a change in the moment of regeneration, but it 
means, as Dr. Eobinson says, disposition, feelings, or tem- 
per: this he says ^here he quotes the very passage. All 
this renewal of the disposition, feelings, or temper of the 
mind, is not regeneration, hut it is the fruit of regenera- 
tion to which he recommends them suhsequently to their 
justification. We can no more say that the phrase means 
that they should seek for an internal cleansing of their 
hearts, than we can say the next verse — '''■put on the new 
rman!' — means an internal cleansing, also ; but if this clause 
of the 24th verse should be so construed, it would be ab- 
solutely conti-ary to the rest of the verse which says, 
''Which after God is created in righteousness and true 
holiness.'' The apostle would not exhort them to do a 
thing already done. But to resume the translation as 
before — And I say and testify in the Lord that ye] 

dua:o(Tu>7j, put 071 the neio man^^ the one according to God 
having been created in (that is, through, by means of) justi- 
fication. This, I think, is the exact translation of the 
passage. They are required to be renewed in the disposi- 
tion, the mode of thinMng of their mind, and to put on the 
new man, which is the same idea expressed in other words, 
as the fruit of the past act of having been created according 
to God by means of justification by faith some time between 
four and seven years ago when I (Paul) preached among 
you. Here is the point — ''the tug of war." This verse 
tells us that the Ephesians had formerly been new men, 
that they had been created at a former period to St. 
Paul's writing to them, as both the history of them, and 
the tense of the verb having been created, show that the 
creation was " according to God," or as our authorized 
translation has it, "after God;" or as Mr. Wesley has it, 



Arg. III.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



51 



" in the very image of God " — all which in idea 'are the 
same. Now observe, this is the moral condition of the 
soul at the very time of its justification: at which time 
all agree that we are also regenerated; for, the text says 
that it is in, through, or hy means of justification that we 
are created according to God. This, then, is the state of 
the soul when it is regenerated. The passages teach us 
that justification, as St. Paul mostly used it, includes also 
regeneration, which is a creation, according to God, in, 
through, or hy mea7is of justification. This exegesis of this 
passage is in perfect accordance with Mr. Watson, who 
defines regeneration to be, "The recovery of the moral 
image of God upon the heart. "-'^ Now, that this pas- 
sage, on which Ave are writing, teaches regeneration to be 
an absolutely-sinless state of the soul, when compared also 
with the writings of our Church, we leave for the good 
sense of our readers to determine. This sinlessness of 
regeneration we argue from several points just in hand. 

1. So far as sinlessness, as a state, is concerned, as op- 
posed to " sin in believers," the regenerated soul is as 
free from sin in that state as Adam was in Eden. For, 
he was created in the image of God, and the regenerated 
soul is created in the same image, unless, forsooth, the 
Divine image change. But the cry is raised just here 
that I teach Adamic perfection. I answer, (a) I have 
said nothing about perfection. I am speaking about re- 
generation, (b) I am not saying a word about external 
circumstances, but simply about the condition of the heart. 

2. Sinless regeneration may be argued from the words 
having been created, as found in our text. Creation implies 
a creature, in the animal world. This creature implies 
a perfect antecedent act of begetting in order to its 
being, and this figure the Holy Spirit has used in speak- 
ing of the moral creation under consideration. It is a 

* Theological Dictionary, Article Regeneration. 



52 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



moral man created such — a spirifual man proceeding from 
the hand of God. Hence, the word begotten is a common 
word in Scripture to indicate that perfect act of the Spirit 
ahsolutely essential to the moral and spiritual creation as 
it is to the animal. As the latter can not be an imperfect 
act, neither can the former be. 3. As to the absolute 
sinlessness of the regenerated state, Mr. Watson defines 
it as, I think correctly, " the recovery of the moral image 
of God." Mr. Worcester, our eminent lexicographer, de- 
fines recover, ^'to restore, repair, regain and since the 
thing recovered, restored, repaired, or regained is the 
" image of God, the re, in the composition of these words 
implies that man had that image once before, unless we 
absolutely intend to trifle with words; but when had he 
that image before unless in the Adamic state before the 
fall? So that from this view of the subject the regener- 
ated soul is just as sinless as Adam's was before he fell, 
or else Mr. Watson's definition of regeneration is incor- 
rect, which we presume none will affirm. 4. This com- 
plete state, absolutely sinless, in which the regenerated 
soul is, manifestly appears as a restoration to the orig- 
inal image of the Creator in the Adamic state, when we 
bear in mind that all through the New Testament the 
regenerated state is most gloriously contrasted with the 
Adamic immediately after the fall, in which state we all 
are by nature. The New Testament abounds with this: 
" You hath he qidcJcened who were dead,'' etc. " We 
know that we have passed from death unto life.'' "Who 
hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath 
translated us into the Jcingdom of his dear Son." That 
which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is 
born of the Spirit, is Spirit." We say the contrast proves 
the sinlessness of the regenerated state; for it is called 
regeneration, which imphes that there was a generation 
previous to the re-generation : which generation was not 
our birth of the earthly parent, but it has reference to the 



Am. III.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



63 



state from "which we fell, as the whole scheme of the atone- 
ment and of justification by faith in that atonement show. 
5. A sinless regeneration is evident from the writings 
of certain authors in our Church, however sacred the 
doctrine of entire sanctification may be in the estimation 
of its advocates. Now, we will prove that regeneration 
is a complete destruction of sin in the soul if entire sanc- 
tification, as such, is. For the Catechism No. 1," of 
our Church, " adopted after a careful examination/' and 
adopted "unanimously" by the "General Conference, 
held in Boston, May, 1852," at the 56th question, says, 
" What is regeneration f It is the new birth of the soul 
in the image of Christ, whereby we become the children 
of God." And then as a proof among the passages 
given, we find Eph. iv, 24, which is the very passage 
under consideration. Here is regeneration well defined, 
and the proof is good. Now, Mr. Watson says, " Sanc- 
tification is either of nature, whereby we are renewed 
after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and 
true holiness. Eph. iv, 24."* Here, you will observe, is 
the same passage to prove sanctification that the Cate- 
chism takes to prove regeneration. We may conclude, 
then, {a) That the Church is in darkness on the doctrine 
of sanctification, as it has been taught, and as it is now 
set forth in our books. (6) We see that it is unable to 
discriminate between the two doctrines, as it holds them, 
not only because it takes the same passage to prove both, 
but because this absolute want of discrimination is to be 
observed as to the doctrines in all their bearings to man. 
{c) Granting such a complete purity of heart as men 
hold entire sanctification to be, is it not evident that the 
regenerated are in like manner perfectly sinless, since 
writers on theology are so destitute of discrimination 
concerning the points in question, as to take one passage 

* Theological Dictionary, Article Sanctification. 



54 



REVIEW or WESLETAN PERFECTIOX. 



[Paet I. 



to prove them both ? (c?) Is it not farther apparent that if 
our argument, as drawn from this passage, fail to prove 
regeneration a complete work in the soul, !Mr. Watson's 
argument from the same passage to prove a sinless sanc- 
tification must fail also ? To this the objector may say, 
" May not the same Scripture teach more than one doc- 
trine?'' We answer: 1. It can not where the doctrines 
are held to be so different in degree, while the standard 
of proof for both from this text is the same; namely, 
the Divine oiage. 2. If the same passage prove both 
doctrines, it would imply that entire sanctification and 
regeneration are obtained at ojie time and by the same 
degree of faith, which would not agree with the theory 
of sanctification as a subsequent work, nor with the idea 
of a more intense faith than that which justifies. The 
question now is, not to determine whether the creation is 
a sinless one or not, this has been sufiiciently considered 
on this passage; but to inquire through what means, or 
at what time, the creation takes place. If the preposi- 
tion en, in our translation rendered '-in,'' be a particle 
of time, then this creation in the image of God takes 
place at the moment of our justification; for the passage 
so reads. If it be a particle to express, in connection 
with the word it governs, the instrument, we find it 
amounts to the same thing; that is, the word in the text 
is jmfifieation, and not etitire sanctification. And the 
passage either teaches a sinless state, or it does not. If 
the latter, it will not suit as a proof for either our argu- 
ment or that of Mr. Watson and those with him; if the 
former, then our ground is correct. In the whole Epistle 
to the Ephesians, there is not once such a doctriue as 
entire sanctification, so called, clearly mentioned. Those 
who beheve in it regard it as positively essential to eternal 
life. Granting it to be a doctrine of the Scriptures, we 
are all ready to agree at once that it must be the one, 
the essential, the great doctrine, and that by no means we 



Arg. III.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 55 

should neglect it; yet are we not lost in astonishment 
when we find no such a thing taught in this Epistle. 
But, on the other hand, we find full and clear statements 
pertaining to regeneration, expressed by various phrases, 
such as, " faithful in Christ," " quickened," " sealed," and 
" created." And when we think of the state of absolute 
ruin from which we are taken in the moment of our just- 
ification and regeneration, we may seriously inquire, Did 
the Holy Spirit use these clearly and strongly significant 
terms for any purpose, or did he intend to deceive us? 
Can there be any other purity of heart greater than what 
Mr. Wesley calls this, 'Hhe very image of God?" Can 
any scholar in the world prove from the original of this 
Epistle, by a single sentence, that its inspired author 
ever meant any thing more than simply the regenerated 
state? How the expression, the very image of God^'' 
applied to one who is regenerated, and no more, will 
agree with the language of the same author, in his ser- 
mon on Eph. ii, 8, we leave for some discerning mind to 
see. He says, ''How naturally do those who experience 
such a change (regeneration) imagine that all sin is gone; 
that it is utterly rooted out of their heart, and has no 
more any place therein ! How easily do they draw that 
inference, 'I feel no sin, therefore I have none ; it does 
not 8i%r^ therefore it does not exut; it has no motion, 
therefore it has no being!' But it is seldom long before 
they are undeceived, finding sin was only suspended, not 
destroyed." Here he says sin luas only suspended, not 
destroyed, and yet in the same Epistle, without there 
being any hint or inference that the Ephesians ever 
passed from a regenerated state to what is called entire 
sanctification, he speaks of the former as being in the 
very image of God. In fact, instead of the transition 
from the actual to the so-called state being found in the 
Epistle, the contrary is found, as already mentioned, in 
the very verse where he says the creation is in the very 



56 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

image of God, since it is said to be "in justification." 
Let the objector show where the transition is. 

If the passage of the Ephesians from the regenerated 
state to that of the entirely sanctified, can not be made to 
appear, then one of two things reason demands : either 
that the moral image of God is a sinful image, that is, 
having sin in it in part, or else that the doctrine of sin 
in a believer — not one who did believe, but one who does 
believe — ^is false. 

Can any man who has ever taken upon himself the 
ordination vows, who has looked with care into the Bible, 
and has seen the truth clearly, do otherwise than "be 
ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away 
all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's 
Word?" 



ARGUMENT IV. 

That regeneration is an absolutely-sinless state 
OF the soul is worthy or further consideration and 

CAPABLE OF FURTHER PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE. This fourth 

argument will be founded on St. Paul's Epistle to the 
Romans, and will be presented under two general heads. 

I. That the apostle^ throiighout the whole Epistle to the 
Romans, is speaking of the justified relation.^ including the 
regenerated state, and not of entire sanctifi^ation in any 
passage whatever, as a separate, subsequent worh to that of 
regeneration, and more thorough in its effects upon the 
heart. 

All that is necessary in^ support of this first division 
of this argument is to take each chapter of the Epistle 
under consideration, and ofi'er a remark on it as briefly 
as the case will allow. Thus it will be easy to see whether 
the apostle is speaking of regeneration or of something 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



57 



greater, as some hold that supposed something to be. In 
chap, i, 1, the apostle introduces himself — inasmuch as at 
the time of writing his Epistle he had never preached to 
the Church at Rome — saying that he was " called to be 
an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which he 
had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scrip- 
tures." Here he says, by way of introduction, that he is 
an apostle of the same Gospel which the prophets fore- 
told. Now, there is no Gospel unless it contain a crucified 
Savior, and of him the prophets have abundantly spoken. 
All the Gospel is concentrated in him. He was preached 
unto Abraham, and the patriarch accepted the proffered 
grace. The sermon was short and clear. Paul tells us 
that it consisted in these words : " In thee shall all nations 
be blessed" — Gal. iii, 8 — and in the same verse he says 
that in these words God preached before the Gospel to 
Abraham. The Gospel was justification by faith, includ- 
ing regeneration. There was no other blessing, as a 
greater work in the heart connected with it. This, then, 
is "the Gospel" which the apostle says he is "separated 
unto," and which has been promised afore by the inspired 
prophets in the " Holy Scriptures." Again, in verses 16 
and 17 he says, " For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of 
Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every 
one that believeth ; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 
For therein is the righteousness \^jiistification] of God re- 
vealed from fiiith to faith." St. Paul calls it " the Gos- 
pel of Christ" — the very same Gospel that was preached 
to Abraham ; for he also says it is " to every one that 
beheveth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." So it 
was according to his own statement — chap, iv, 23 — when 
describing the Gospel w^hich Abraham received, " Now, it 
was not written for his [Abraham's] sake alone, [the Jews 
to whom it was "first" ofi'ered,] that it was imputed to 
him ; but for us [" Greeks " or Gentiles] also, if we believe 
on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." 



58 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. [Paet I. 



But the quotation further says that the righteousness of 
God is revealed in or by the Gospel from faith to faith. 
By the words righteousness of God'* — Aixawab^^r^yap dtob^ 
justification of God — we may understand justification by 
faith. This is certain from chap, iii, 21 : But now the 
righteousness of God \_di/.ato<j6yrj Osoo, justification of GodJ 
without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law 
and the prophets.'' Here is the same expression, and it 
is said to be witnessed by the law — one dispensation of 
faith ; and by the prophets — another dispensation of the 
same faith. Hence " from faith to faith" — "by a gradual 
series of still clearer promises.'"'" (Wesley's Kotes.) He 
also says it is "without law,'' which shows that by the 
phrase he means justification by faith; and to make it still 
plainer, in the next verse he says, A:xaio(7u>rj ok Stou did -i<t- 
rswq 'Ir^Goo Xpiffrou — Even the JUSTIFICATION of God through 
faith of Jesus CJirist. It should also be observed that the 
apostle is speaking of the Gospel, and " therein," or in it, 
or, perhaps, more correctly, by it — h abroj — is revealed 
this justification of God, whereby the sinner finds salva- 
tion ; for without the Gospel we seek for pardon in vain. 
Hence he makes the quotation, " The just [that is, the man 
who has been justified and remains such] shall live by 
faith." From all these expressions we may safely con- 
clude that the apostle in the first chapter of Romans 
speaks of justification by faith. 

We pass to the second chapter. In this he first shows 
the Jew that, as to sin, he is inexcusable; for the Jew 
regarded the Gentile as an outcast from all the privileges 
and blessings of God, and claimed, because he was of the 
stock of Abraham as to the flesh, that, therefore, he should 
be saved and others rejected. In answer to this he says, 
" Therefore thou art inexcusable, man, whosoever thou 
art that judgest : for wherein thou judge st another, thou 
condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest, doest the same 
things." Here the apostle, in a sly way, by the expres- 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



59 



sion, man," with great caution seems to approach the 
Jew with arguments in which he insinuates that the Jew is 
as guilty and as hable to God's severe judgments for his 
sins as the Gentile is. He shows that he has hardness " 
of heart; that he is "impenitent;" that he treasures up 
" wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the 
righteous judgment of God;" that God will render to 
every man according to his deeds. Eternal life he repre- 
sents as the reward of well-doinc; to those who seek for 
glory, honor, a»nd immortality. But unto them that are 
contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unright- 
eousness, there is to be given, as the wages of their sins, 
" indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon 
every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first and 
also of the Gentile." All this St. Paul argues on the 
ground that " there is no respect of persons with God." 

Such are his arguments throughout the whole chapter 
that he makes out the Jew to be as guilty before God as 
the Gentile. He then closes this part of his argument by 
summing up the whole, and saying, "He is not a Jew 
which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which 
is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one in- 
wardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of 
God." From this chapter, then, we learn that the apostle 
was preparing the mind of the Jew to see the necessity 
of justification by faith, knowing that the proud in spirit 
can never receive this blessing ; and the Lord, despising 
such, it was his object to humble the mind of the Jew so 
as to accept of salvation on God's terms, as found in the 
Abrahamic covenant, and not on the mere ground of being 
a Jew. Hence he says, " Behold thou art called a Jew, 
and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God," and 
to correct his error, tells him that a Jew is one that has 
the heart circumcised; so that from a fair view of the de- 
sign of the second chapter of Romans, we conclude that 



60 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



the apostle was preparing the way for his great argument 
on justification by faith. And the first and second chap- 
ters are ahke as to doctrine. 

We propose to examine the third chapter to see whether 
the apostle teaches justification by faith or entire sanctifi- 
cation as a greater and more complete work in the soul. 
He continues his argument. On this chapter much might 
be said, if necessary. Referring no doubt to the second 
chapter, he says — verse 9 — " We have before proved both 
Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin," and 
quotes to the Jew his own Scripture, found in the book 
of Psalms, "There is none righteous, no, not one." That 
is all. Both Jews and Gentiles are alike under the curse 
of Adam's fall. He then describes their lost condition ; 
namely, that their mouth is full of cursing, their feet are 
swift to shed blood, destruction is in their way, the fear 
of God is not before their eyes. He says that the law 
thus represents them, " That every mouth may be stopped, 
and all the world become guilty before God." He then 
introduces his forcible argument against them as Jews, 
with his usual concluding term. Therefore : " By the deeds 
of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight ;" 
and, after setting forth his argument at some length, he 
draws this conclusion in these words — verse 28 — " There- 
fore we conclude that a man is justified hy faith without 
the deeds of the law." We see, then, that the apostle, in 
the third chapter, is professedly teaching justification by 
faith — the very same doctrine which he taught in the 
former chapters ; and not a word seems to be said about 
entire sanctification as a separate, inward, subsequent 
blessing, as it has generally been held. 

The fourth chapter of the Epistle is now to be consid- 
ered. It is so plain that we need only read it to see 
that the author is teaching justification by faith, and not 
entire sanctification. He first inquires whether Abraham 
was justified by faith or by works. If by works, ^'he 



Arc. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENEKATION. 61 



hath whereof to glory, but not before God/' In proof 
whereof he calls in the Old Testament Scriptures, which 
the Jew could not dispute, saying, " Abraham believed 
God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" — 
justification. " Now to him that worketh is the reward 
not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that 
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the un- 
godly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Then he 
tells how David, in the beginning of the thirty-second 
Psalm, sung of the man who was in a justified relation 
and regenerated state, saying, " Blessed are they whose 
iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 
Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord will not impute 
sin." He then inquires if this blessedness cometh on the 
Gentiles as well as on the Jews. In answer to this he 
first calls our mind to the fact that faith was counted to 
Abraham for righteousness, and then inquires whether this 
was done before Abraham's circumcision or after it. To 
which he answers, ^' Not in circumcision, but in uncircum- 
cision." Now, any one who will take the pains to search, 
will find from the book of Genesis that Abraham was 
justified by faith about, or nearly, fourteen years before 
he was circumcised. For, when he was justified by faith, 
he had no son as yet born unto him, but when he was 
circumcised he had a son called Ishmcel, and he was cir- 
cumcised on the same day with his son ; but Ishmael was 
thirteen years old at this time. Therefore, St. Paul says 
that he received the sign circumcision, a seal of the right- 
eousness— that is, — of the faith which he had, 
being yet uncircumcised — how long uncircumcised after 
faith? about fourteen years — that he might be the father 
of all them that bejieve, though they be not circumcised, 
that righteousness — justification — might be imputed to 
them also. Then he shows that justification could not 
be by the law, as the Jew supposed, for on such a sup- 
position the promise of God in the Abrahamic covenant 



62 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

would be ''made of none effect," and faith, the term of 
that covenant, on m^n's part, would be ''void," that 
there was no justification in the law, that it only worked 
"wrath." Therefore, he says, "It is of faith that it 
might be by grace ; to the end the promise might be sure 
to all the seed ; not to that only which is of the law, [the 
Jew,] but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, 
who is the father of us all." Such, then, are the clear 
and strong arguments in favor of justification and regen- 
eration in this chapter, but not one word about entire 
sanctification, as a subsequent, distinct, and inward work 
in all this profound reasoning. How strange ! 

As to the fifth chapter, in reference to the arguments 
in the preceding one, the apostle says, "Therefore BEma 
JUSTIFIED hy faith, we have peace with God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ : by whom also we have access by 
faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in 
hope of the glory of God." Here it is seen that St. Paul 
first speaks of justification, and then of its consequences — ■ 
that it affords "peace" with God — that we have "access" 
or approach to God through Christ. Throughout the whole 
chapter he thus speaks directly or indirectly about justi- 
fication, because he is treating of that subject on purpose, 
and apart from what some denominate entire sanctifica- 
tion. As to the sixth chapter, having said in the former 
that where sin abounded grace doth much more abound, 
he now represents the Jew as taking the ground, that if 
grace had so abounded unto a sinful world, we ought to 
live in sin still, in order that grace might abound yet 
more and more. Hence, St. Paul, as to this objection, 
and as to the doctrine of justification taught in the pre- 
ceding chapters, says, " What shall we say then ? Shall 
we continue in sin that grace may abound?" Then he 
refers them to their justification by faith, as marked by 
their baptism, and so he clearly connects the sixth chap- 
ter with the preceding, or, more properly speaking, the 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. G3 

division of the Scriptures into chapters has divided the 
apostle's discourse. In verse 6 he says, "Knowing this, 
that our old man is crucified with him." Now, " to he cru- 
cified with ChristJ' as already shoAvn in a former argu- 
ment, means to be justified and regenerated. So here is 
a second proof that he is still speaking of justification 
and regeneration. In verse 7 he uses the very w^ord to 
justify : " For he that is dead is freed from sin." The 
word here translated, " is freed,'^ is the same verb trans- 
lated " being justified,'' v, 1. The original stands thus : 

6 yap aTzoda'joyv dsduatwrat aixb rv^q diiapriaq — For the OTIC 

having died has been justified from sin. This is the 
verbal and exact translation of the words. The verb is 
translated by the word justified, and not by the word is 
freed, in our marginal notes. It should have been trans- 
lated by the proper form of the English word to justify, 
and not by a form of the verb to free. It is rendered in 
perhaps all other places by our verb to justify nor are 
we able to see with what consistency the original meaning 
and common use of a word should be departed from, as 
properly rendered in so many other places, and another 
meaning assumed, when the context and scope remain 
the same, unless men would affect a beautifying gloss, or 
connect theological view^s with their translations. Our 
translation, then, being granted, as given above, shows 
that the apostle is still speaking of justification and re- 
generation. And he continues to speak of the duties and 
obligations grooving out of this relation as signs of a man's 
faith, and says in verse 18 : " Being then made free from 
sin, ye became servants to righteousness." Now it seems 
evident that the last clause of this verse — idouXwdrjre rfj 
dcxacoffu^rj — should be rendered, ye became servants to 

* The verb StKaidw occurs in the New Testament just forty times. In 
every instance it is rendered by our English verb to justifxj, except in the 
impending text, and in Rev. xxii, 11, where it is translated ^' let he 
righteous." 



64 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



JUSTIFICATION. This being the best meaning of the word 
in the passage, it shows, agreeably to the context and 
scope, that St. Paul is still speaking of justification by 
faith, distinctly making mention of it, and not making 
the least allusion to any greater work. In the very same 
sense he uses the word in the nineteenth and twentieth 
verses, where it is translated in the English, in both in- 
stances, by the word righteousness, although the context 
and a consistency of translation demand that it should be 
rendered by the word justification. To the Greek scholar 
it may not make any difference, but I think it does to the 
English. 

The seventh chapter of our Epistle is now to be con- 
sidered. We will see what the doctrine is, of which the 
apostle is still speaking. He begins, ''Know ye not, 
brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how 
that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he 
liveth? For the woman which hath a husband, is bound 
by the law of her husband so long as he liveth; but if 
the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her 
husband." Now, the fact that the apostle addresses the 
Jew by the tender expression "brethren," and the fact 
that he introduces his argument by a comparison of a 
married woman — a matter familiar to all — being free from 
the law of her husband as soon as he die, convince us 
that he is just preparing a strong illustration for the Jew 
in order to show him that his law is dead, and that he 
must receive justification by faith, and die unto the Jewish 
law. Then he says, verse 4, " Wherefore, my brethren, ye 
also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; 
that ye should be married to another, even to him who is 
raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto 
God." Now the inquiry may be made. Is not this language 
the very same, in substance, as that in the twenty-second 
verse of the sixth chapter, where it says, '' But now being 
made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 65 

your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life ?" 
Notice the two similar points in each quotation. 1. The 
being made free is mentioned. 2. The result of this free- 
dom, which in one passage is called hringing forth fruit 
unto God, in the o\h-GV fimit ujito holiness; yet in the sixth 
chapter he is speaking of justification by faith, and this 
seventh is just a continuation of the same subject, and 
not a transition to what some call entire sanctification. 
Observe, further, how nearly the above quotation from 
the seventh chapter agrees with that found in the tenth, 
which says, "For Christ is the end of the law for right- 
eousness — dtxaioffovri'^, for the purpose of justification — 
to every one that believeth." So the Jew is taught that 
salvation is not found by his observance of law, but in 
his reception of Christ; and since Christ is the end of the 
law for, or in order to, justification, and since it is said, 
" The law is our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ 
that we might be justified by faith. But that after faith 
is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster," it seems 
conclusive, if we make Scripture its own interpreter, that 
the apostle is still preaching justification to the Jew by 
the forcible illustration of the marriage relation being 
allowed where one of the parties in a former marriage has 
died. This seventh chapter, therefore, is a continuance 
of the argument on justification by faith. In no instance 
have we seen a statement of entire sanctification, or the 
use of the verb to sanctify. The eighth chapter we now 
notice briefly, in order to see what doctrine it contains. 
He says, " There is therefore now no condemnation to 
them which are in Christ Jesus." Now, to he in Christ 
Jesus, means to be a believer in him. We have a similar 
passage in 2 Cor. v, 17 : " If any man be in Christ, he is 
a new creature." This passage, also, means a believer by 
the phrase " in Christ J' Dr. Clarke defines it, " A gen- 
uine Christian, having Christ dwelling in his heart by 

faith." Mr. Wesley defines it, A true believer in him." 

6 



66 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEKFECTION. [Part I. 



We find, then, that the apostle speaks of a genuine Chris- 
tian and true believer, but such a person is no other than 
one standing in the Abrahamic covenant, the term or 
condition of which is faith. "No condemnation " is there 
to such a one, for at the hand of God there is no imputa- 
tion of sin to him; his faith is reckoned to him for justi- 
fication. Such a person has also the Spirit, and he walks 
after the same, and as Christ is in him ; the body is dead 
indeed, because of the death of Adam, the fall ; it is still 
subject to the sentence, "Dust thou art;" but the spirit 
is life because of righteousness, (justification.) In verse 16 
he says, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, 
that we are the children of God; and if childi^en, then 
heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heu's with Christ." Now, 
this is the very style of the same author writing to the 
Galatians, where he is speaking of justification by faith. 
First, he shows the sonship of the believer, then the heir- 
dom. " For ye are all the children of God by faith of 
Jesus Christ." "And if ye are Christ's, then are ye 
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 
These are the privileges of justifying faith ; namely, son- 
ship and heirdom^ and in the book of Galatians he sets 
forth these two relations to God as the blessedness of the 
justified relation and of the regenerated state. But, in 
Romans viii, he speaks of the same two results of justi- 
fication ; hence he speaks in Romans of justification, Avhich 
is apparent from the fact that in verse 10 he uses the 
very word itself: "The Spirit is life because of justifi- 
CATiox." In verse 33, when he would speak of the good- 
ness and mercy of God, of his love and tenderness in the 
pardon of sin, he does not use such a term as sanctifica- 
tion, but he uses the verb found in v, 1, kindred with 
other words used from the beginning of the Epistle, and 
in keeping with the subject-matter throughout, saying, 
" It is God that justifieth — 6 duauo'^^ the one justifying.'' 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



67 



From this we see that St. Paul's constant theme is justi- 
fication, and not sanctification. 

The ninth chapter, it is well known, has been, in time 
gone by at least, a very difficult passage to explain. 
Some Calvinistic writers, from a misapprehension of the 
scope of the apostle's argument, have fallen into great 
error concerning the doctrines of election and reprobation, 
because they regarded this as teaching a personal election 
and reprobation, and not as national in its character. 
We notice, 

1. The apostle expresses great sorrow for the Jews on 
account of their unbelief and rebellion. This is included 
in verses 1-3: "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my 
conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 
that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my 
heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from 
Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the 
flesh." 

2. He speaks of the great privileges of the J ews, verses 
4, 5 : " Who are Israelites ; to whom pertaineth the adop- 

' tion, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of 
the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; whose 
are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." 
They had such gracious privileges, and the apostle being 
one of them as to nation, that he wished himself an 
anathema from Christ, probably as taken from the visible 
Church and put to death as a victim for their sakes, if 
such would save them. 

3. He next shows that the Jews are not all cast off, 
as if God's promise to them had failed wherein he said, 
" I will estabhsh my covenant between me and thee, and 
to thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever- 
lasting covenant ; to be a God unto thee and to thy seed 
after thee." Gen. xvii, 7. This promise he refers to in 
verse 6: "Not as though the Word of God had taken 



68 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



none effect, for they are not all Israel which are of 
Israel." 

4. He assigns two other reasons to show why the Jews 
are cast off; the first is, that the natural descendants of 
Abraham are not the true children of God, verse 7 : " Nei- 
ther because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all 
childi-en." The second is, that the true children are 
called in Isaac, and limited to him, because of him Christ 
should come, otherwise an Ishmaelite, because he was a 
descendant of Abraham, had as good a right to be called 
a child of God as any Jew had. In verse 8, therefore, 
he explains the ground he takes in verse 7 : " That is. 
They which are the children of the flesh, these are not 
the children of God ; but the children of the promise are 
counted for the seed." 

5. He introduces his Scripture proof of the ground 
which he takes, as stated above in our fourth point, verse 
9 : " For this is the word of promise. At this time will I 
come, and Sarah shall have a son." Here the apostle 
refers the Jew to the promise, merely giving a part of 
the quotation for the whole, which was the Jewish mode of 
quoting the Scriptures. God said to Abraham: "Is any 
thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I 
will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and 
Sarah shall have a son." Gen. xviii, 14. Kow St. Paul 
well knew that the Jew understood, of this son, who was 
Isaac, that God had promised to Abraham, "In Isaac 
shall thy seed be called." 

6. The apostle gives a further illustration of the doc- 
trine that the children of the promise are counted for the 
seed," to show that the Jew has no right to object to 
God's "promise" or plan of salvation: "And not only" 
is " this " plan of saving men by faith, as taught in the 
Abrahamic covenant, so, according as it pleased God to 
establish it on this plan, in preference to all other plans, 
but we have a similar instance of God doing as he pleases 



Aro. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND KEGENERATION. 



69 



with nations, in the case of the birth of two nations in 
Jacob and Eeau. Therefore we have no right to object 
to any of God's plans of procedure ; for if he casts oflf the 
Jews for their unbelief, it is according to his plan or pur- 
pose, for "when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even 
by our father Isaac, (for the children [or nations] being 
not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, 
that the purpose [or plan] of God, according to election 
[or mere choice] might stand, not of works, [for it was 
before either Jacob, or Esau, or their posterity had a 
being,] but of him that calleth ;) it was said unto her. The 
elder [nation] shall serve the younger [nation.] As it is 
Avritten, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." " I 
have loved Jacob with a peculiar love, that is, the Israel- 
ites, the posterity of Jacob ; and I have comparatively 
hated Esau, that is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. 
But observe, 1. This does not relate to the person of 
Jacob or Esau. 2. Nor does it relate to the eternal state 
either of them or their posterity." (Wesley's Note.) 

7. St. Paul anticipates an objection now from the Jew, 
and says — verse 14 — " What shall we say then, [to all 
this ?] Is there unrighteousness with God ? God forbid." 
Then he sustains his proposition from Scripture, " For he 
saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have 
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have 
compassion." " The words of God to Moses — Exod. 
xxxiii, 19 — shoAV that God has a right to dispense his 
blessings as he pleases ; for, after he had declared that he 
would spare the Jews of old, and continue them in the 
relation of his peculiar people, when they had deserved 
to have been cut off for their idolatry, he said, I will make 
all my goodness j^ass before tJiee, and I will proclaim the 
name of the Lord before thee ; and I ivill have mercy on 
lohom I will have mercy y and I tvill have compassion on 
whom I will have compassion.^' As if he had said, I will 
make such a display of my perfections as shall convince 



70 EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



you that my nature is kind and beneficent ; but know that 
I am a debtor to none of my creatures. My benefits and 
blessings are merely from my own good-will ; nor can any 
people^ much less a rebellious people, challenge them as 
their due in justice or equity. And therefore I now spare 
the Jews ; not because either you who intercede for them, 
or they themselves, have any claim upon my favor, but on 
my own free and sovereign grace I choose to show them 
mercy and compassion. I will give my salvation in my 
own way and on my own terms. He that believeth on my 
Son Jesus shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall 
be damned. This is God's ultimate design ; this purpose 
he will never change, and this he has fully declared in the 
everlasting Gospel. This is the grand decree of reproba- 
tion and election." (Dr. Adam Clarke, in loco.) 

8. The apostle now draws his conclusion : So then, it 
[the blessing] is not of him that willeth, [as Abraham 
willed that it be given to Ishmael,] nor of him that run- 
neth, [as Esau ran for the venison,] but of God that 
sheweth mercy." The meaning of this verse is, that 
God's mode of conferring the blessing of his Divine favor 
is not according to the will of man, but according to the 
grace of God — such grace as is manifested in the plan of 
salvation, through justification hy faitJi, offered to wicked 
men. 

9. St. Paul sustains this conclusion by another quota- 
tion: "For he saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same 
purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my 
power in thee, and that my name might be declared 
throughout all the earth." Verse 17. " God has an in- 
disputable right to reject those who will not accept the 
blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the 
case of Pharaoh, to whom, after many instances of stub- 
bornness and rebellion, he said, as it is recorded in Scrip- 
ture, For this very thing have I raised thee up J' (Wesley's 
Note, in loco.) 



Aeg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION^ AND EEGENERATION". 



71 



According to this, the apostle draws his conclusion, 
Therefore hath he mercj on whom he will have mercy, 
and whom he will he hardeneth." So then. That is, 
accordingly he does show mercy on his own terms; 
namely, on them that believe. And whom he willeth. 
Namely, them that believe not. He hardeneth. Leaves 
to the hardness of their hearts." (Wesley's Note.) 

10. Now, the apostle introduces an objection in the 
person of a Jew : " Thou wilt say then unto me, Why 
doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will?" 
Verse 19. "If God's glory be so highly promoted and 
manifested by our obstinacy, and he suffers us to proceed 
in our hardness and infidelity, why does he find fault with 
us, or punish us for that which is according to his good 
pleasure ?" (Dr. Adam Clarke, in loco.) Then he admin- 
isters a reproof to such an objector : " Nay, but, man, 
Avho art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing 
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me 
thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the 
same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another 
unto dishonor?" "To appoint one vessel — namely, the 
believer — to honor, and another — the unbeliever — to dis- 
honor.^' (Wesley's Note.) Reader, observe that, ac- 
cording to our argument and according to Mr. Wesley, 
the arguments of the apostle border most elaborately on 
the doctrine of justification by faith, and this is Dr. 
Clarke's view, as seen from his language above quoted. 
" What if God, w^illing to show his wrath and to make his 
power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels 
of wrath fitted to destruction ; and that he might make 
known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, 
which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us whom he 
hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gen- 
tiles." "Is this any injustice?" (Wesley's Note.) 

11. Has not God promised to call the Gentiles? Surely 
he has ; for here is the proof: " As he saith also in Osee, 



72 



REVIEW or WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Pabt I. 



[that is, the prophet HoseaJ I ^ill call them my people, 
■which are not my people ; and her beloved, which was 
not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place 
where it was said unto them. Ye are not my people, there 
shall they be called, the children of the lixing God." 
Verses 25, 26. On the other hand, did not God say 
that only a part of Israel should be saved, that in right- 
eousness he would cut the work short for their unbelief? 
He did it; for, Esaias also crieth concerning Israel. 
Thouorh the number of the children of Israel be as the 
sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. For he will 
finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness ; because 
a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And 
as Esaias said before. Except the Lord of Sabaoth had 
left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made hke 
unto Gomorrah." Yerses 27-29. Here the apostle ends 
his powerful argument against the Jew, and is now ready 
for his conclusion. Xow, according to the context and 
the scope, and according to the excellent commentators, 
to whom I have referred, the apostle's argument goes to 
show that he has been convincing the Jew, that the great 
mass of the Jewish people, as a nation, have been rejected 
on account of their unbelief, and that the Gentiles who 
believe are the elect, too^ether with the believincr Jews. 
The words of verse 8 ought to settle this question, if we 
had no other proof in the chapter, especially when we 
compare them with the former part of this Epistle ; 
namely, "The children of the promise are counted for 
the seed." But the apostle's conclusion, which is his 
final one on this argument, completely fixes his meaning : 
" What shaU we say then ? That the Gentiles which fol- 
lowed not after righteousness \_3czaLo<Tu>rjv. jmiificatioii] 
have attained to righteousness, [o:zajo(7'j>7;v, justification,'] 
even the righteousness [dty.atoffu-^TjV, justification] which 
is of faith; but Israel which followed after the law of 
righteousness \_or/.aiO(ju>rjC, justification] hath not attained 



Arg. IV.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



73 



unto the law of righteousness [8iy.aio<ju'^7)(;^ justification.^ 
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, 
[man's part of the condition in the Abrahamic covenant,] 
but as it were by the works of the law. For they stum- 
bled at that stumbling-stone [a crucified Savior.] As it is 
written, [in Isaiah,] Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling- 
stone, and rock of offense ; and whosoever believeth on 
HIM shall not be ashamed." If this, as taught in the 
ninth chapter of Romans, is not justification by faith, 
the very same as taught in every one of the preceding 
eight chapters, have we any assurance that it is taught 
any where in the Bible ? For he names the very doctrine 
itself which I have placed in the original above. Its 
name, its condition, being by faith, the manner in which 
he describes the Jews as rejecting it, the calling of the 
Gentiles, according to prophecy, to be partakers of this 
blessing, the scope, the context, the implied parties and 
parts in the Abrahamic covenant, and the opinion of our 
commentators, themselves entire sanctificationists, agree 
that St. Paul teaches nothing else, as a direct theme or 
doctrine, but justification by faith and its internal 
spiritual blessing, regeneration, in this entire chapter. 
The careful reader and sound reasoner, we think, will not 
think us tedious on this chapter, if he duly consider the 
bearings of the argument in all directions. 

We will now notice the tenth chapter, in order to see 
if it teaches regeneration or entire sanctification. He 
says, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for 
Israel is that they might be saved. For I bear them 
record that they have a zeal of God, but not according 
to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God's right- 
eousness, [ri^v rod Oeou dcxaioffuvr]'^, the justification of God,^ 
and- going about to establish their own righteousness, 
\_justifieation,^ have not submitted themselves unto the 
righteousness [rjy dr/.aioffuvrj, justification'] of God. For 
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness l_dr/.aio<76vrjv, 



74 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



justification'] to every one that believetli [that fills his part 
in the Abrahamic covenant.] For Moses describeth the 
righteousness [puato(ju^>riv, justification] which is of the 
law, That the man which doeth those things shall live in 
them. But the righteousness [diy.ato(To>^rj^ justification] 
which is of faith [the condition on man's part in the 
covenant of grace] speaketh on this Avise, Say not in 
thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? (that is, to 
bring Christ [God's part in the covenant] down from 
above ;) or, Who shall descend into the deep ? (that is, to 
bring Christ up again from the dead.) But what saith it ? 
The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart: that is, the word of faith Avhich we preach; that 
if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and 
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from 
the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man 
BELIEVETH [complicth with the term of the covenant] 
unto righteousness, \puaioGwri^>^ justification^ which God as 
his part in the covenant promised to ^impute,'] and with 
the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the 
Scriptures saith. Whosoever believeth on him shall not be 
ashamed. [You Jews will find justification by faith taught 
in your own Scriptures.] For there is no difi'erence be- 
tween the Jew and the Greek ; for the same Lord over 
all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever, 
shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." So 
the apostle goes on. His words, without any comment, 
as found in this quotation, show beyond doubt that he 
still teaches justification by faith, giving it, indeed, that 
name^ the same as he teaches in all the former part of 
this Epistle. If any one can desire more proof in favor 
of our argument, he can read Dr. Adam Clarke and Mr. 
Wesley on the passage. We see no sign of entire sanc- 
tification, as additional to justification and regeneration, 
taught in this chapter, but the apostle is still aiming at 
his one grand theme — justification by faith. We will 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 75 



briefly consider chapter eleven. The sco2:)e of the passage 
must be considered. The apostle now asks the question, 
in view of the argument presented in the preceding chap- 
ter, " I say then, Hath God cast away his people ? God 
forbid. For I also [as well as the rest of you Jews] am 
an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of 
Benjamin, [and I believed in the Lord Jesus Christ my- 
self, and I have by no means been cast off, for God for 
Christ's sake hath saved me because I believed, was justi- 
fied and regenerated by faith, and not by works.] God 
hath not cast away his people which he foreknew ; [for if 
he hath I am sure he would have cast away me, for I, 
although saved, deserve to be called the chief of sinners ; 
I breathed out threatening and slaughter against the 
Church.] Wot ye not what the Scripture saith [under 
similar circumstances] of Elias [when Jezebel was perse- 
cuting him, how he fled and hid himself in a cave, and 
how the Lord came to him and said unto him, 'What 
doest thou here, Elijah?'* 'And he said, I have been 
very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the chil- 
dren of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down 
thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, 
even I only, am left; and they seek my life to take it 
away.' And have ye not read in your own Scriptures, 
how the Lord answered him and said, ' Yet have I left me 
seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not 
bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed 
him.'f] Even so, then, at this present time also, there 
is a remnant according to the election of grace." Just 
so; God then did not cast away Elijah, his servant, who 
had faith in him, nor the seven thousand who still ac- 
knowledged him as the true God; nor will he cast away 
any of the children of Abraham, according to the flesh, 
if they will come unto Christ and believe. " And if by 
grace, then is it no more of works ; otherwise grace is 

* 1 Kings xix, 9. f 1 Kings xix, 18. 



76 KEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more 
grace ; otherwise work is no more work." Dr. Adam Clarke^ 
makes the following judicious comment on the words ae- 
cording to the election of grace, above quoted, which is well 
worthy of a place in this connection. He says, " And 
these are saved just as God has saved all behevers from 
the beginning; they are chosen by his grace, not on ac- 
count of any worth or excellence in themselves, but through 
his goodness are they chosen to have a place in his 
Church, and continue to be his people, entitled to all the 
privileges of the new covenant. The election of grace 
simply signifies God's gracious design in sending the 
Christian system into the world, and saving under it all 
those who believe in Christ Jesus, and none else. Thus 
the believers in Christ are chosen to inherit the blessings 
of the Gospel, while those who seek justification by the 
works of the law are rejected." On this same expression, 
namely, according to the election of grace, Mr. Wesley 
says, " According to that gracious purpose of God, he 
that believeth shall be saved." How certain it is, then, 
that St. Paul is still teaching justification and regenera- 
tion, with this understanding, that he is in this part of 
his Epistle more particularly offering it to the Jew. Our 
commentators so understood him. In like manner he rea- 
sons all through the chapter with the Jew, in order to 
instruct him in Christ, that he may be justified by faith. 
In verse 32 he says, "For God hath concluded them all 
[both Jews and Gentiles] in unbelief, that he might have 
mercy upon all." How very similar is this to Galatians 
iii, 22 : The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that 
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to 
them that believe." This is the very same doctrine. It 
evidently refers to the Abrahamic covenant, called the 
promise on account of faith of Jesus Christ, because God, 
in that covenant, made a promise, on his part of the com- 
pact, to give Jesus Christ as the Savior to all who would 



Aeg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 77 



fill their part of the same compact, which part was to be- 
lieve. This is the only salvation which God hath given us. 
This, St. Paul, as God's servant, has faithfully declared 
in the eleven chapters now examined. In no case does this 
one teach the so-called doctrine of entire sanctification. 

We pass to chapter twelve. It is sufficient to say on 
this one that the apostle says nothing directly about 
justification by faith, nor does he say any thing about 
what is called entire sanctification. The whole chapter 
is hortatory in its character, directing us to the practice 
of almost every good. Christian act, such as, ''Let love 
be without dissimulation " Abhor that which is evil 
"Recompense to no man evil for evil;" "If thine enemy 
hunger, feed him " If he thu'st, give him drink." Now, 
St. James teaches the very same kind of doctrine; for 
he says, "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute 
of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in 
peace, be ye w^armed and filled; notwithstanding ye give 
them not those things which are needful for the body; 
what doth it profit ? Even so faith, [justifying faith, taken 
in the sense of compliance with the Abrahamic covenant, 
for he mentions in verse twenty-three that Abraham's 
ofi'ering up of Isaac fulfilled that Scripture which saith, 
* Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him 
for righteousness;' but this ofi'ering up of Isaac and this 
command to feed the hungry are given by James, in the 
same context and scope, as the fruit of justification and 
regeneration, as the reference to Abraham shows,] if it 
hath not works, is dead, being alone." Erom this it is 
apparent that St. James teaches good works as the fruit 
of justification, and as necessary to the Hfe of faith, as the 
spirit is necessary to the life of the body. Our Church 
has always taught and believed St. James in this sense.* 
If, therefore, St. James makes an argument for the life 

* See Articles of Religion, Article IX, of the Justification of Man, Meth- 
odist Discipline. 



78 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet I. 



and preservation of the justified relation and regen- 
erated state, which are by faith, through his plea for 
good works as the sign of such faith, he justly deserves 
the honor of teaching justification bj faith as much as 
St. Paul taught it. But Paul, in the chapter under con- 
sideration, inculcates the same good works that James 
did, as the fruit of faith ; and since Paul has taught just- 
ification in the whole of the eleven chapters already 
discussed, it is apparent that in this one he exhorts them 
to exhibit the sigti as James did; therefore, he is still 
virtually teaching justification by faith, and making no 
reference to any greater work in the heart than St. James 
referred to when he taught works as the fi'uit of Abra- 
ham's justification, and not of his entire sanctification as 
something additional. 

As to the thirteenth chapter, it is said — verse 10 — 
"Love is the fulfilling of the law." As St. James taught 
justification by works, as the fruit of justification by faith, 
so does St. Paul, in this chapter, as above quoted, teach 
the same doctrine ; namely, that the keeping of the moral 
law is justification by works, not in the sense of pardon, 
but as the fruit of the pardoned relation. What I have 
said on the last chapter is all applicable on this one. No 
more need be added; for if what is there said is conclu- 
sive, the same reasoning is on this chapter. 

We are now at the fourteenth. Here the apostle gives 
some advice about eating certain kinds of food, because, 
" one believeth that he may eat all things ; another, who 
is weak, eateth herbs." As some oS'ense was about to 
arise in the Church from such a state of things, the 
apostle gives his instruction, to the edification of all con- 
cerned, to show them that these things were only side 
issues and of minor importance : " For the kingdom of 
God is not meat and di'ink, but righteousness, \_dixaio(Tuv7]^ 
justification,'] and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
Now, it seems as if St. Paul here preached the same 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND KEGENERATION. 



79 



doctrine, in describing the kingdom of God in the heart 
of the believer, that he did in the forepart of the fifth 
chapter of this Epistle. For there he says, " Being just- 
ified by faith, we have peace" — "we rejoice in hope" — 
" the Holy Ghost is given unto us." Observe here, also, 
these three points of resemblance : 1. The kingdom of 
God he says is justification; 2. Peace; 3. Joy; 4. It is 
in the Holy Ghost. Does he not here teach the same 
doctrine, exactly, that he taught in the fifth chapter? 
Has it not the same marks? It is justification in both 
instances, and it has three results in common^ distinctly 
mentioned ; namely, peace, joy, and the Holy Ghost. 
Since, therefore, all agree that in the fifth chapter he is 
teaching justification, he does it also in the present one. 
And the doctrine of entire sanctification, as such, is not 
found. 

As to the fifteenth chapter he says — verse 12 — "And 
again Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he 
that shall arise to rule over the Gentiles, in him shall 
the Gentiles trust." The apostle having shown in the 
preceding part of his Epistle, that Christ was the Savior 
of the Jews who would believe, now begins to show, more 
fully than before, that he is also the Savior of the believ- 
ing Gentiles. In proof whereof he quotes three passages, 
one from the Psalms, one from Deuteronomy, and one 
from Isaiah. This last I have quoted above. The root 
of Jesse is the Messiah, and in him shall the Gentiles 
trust. Trust is the chief element in saving faith. Every 
Gentile who receives the blessing of justification trusts in 
him. We receive him in the Abrahamic covenant, our 
part of which, in order to salvation, is trust. And all the 
while in the covenant of grace, ours is simply a justified 
relation and regenerated state, as was the case with Abra- 
ham. But in verse 13 all the elements pertaining to 
justification are mentioned, as w^e found them in the last 
chapter; namely, faith — man's part to exercise in the 



80 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



covenant — ^peace, joy, hope, and the Holy Ghost. Here 
are his own words, "Now the God of hope fill you with 
all JOY and peace in believing, that ye may abound in 
HOPE, through the power of the Holy Ghost." Erom all 
these points of agreement it seems strange if St. Paul is 
not still speaking of justification by faith, and of its results, 
apart from the idea of any other or additional blessing." 

We now take up the last chapter of Romans in order 
to see if, forsooth, St. Paul may teach what is called 
entire sanctification before he closes his Epistle. In verse 
3 he says, Great Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers IN 
Christ Jesus." We have already shown, in accordance 
with Mr. Wesley and Dr. Adam Clarke, that the phrase 
Christ means to he a believer in him, and, if a be- 
liever, then in the Abrahamic covenant, and if in cov- 
enant relation, then simply justified and regenerated, as 
Abraham was. 

In the twenty-sixth verse he speaks of the mystery 
"made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, 
according to the commandment of the everlasting God, 
made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." 
Two observations on this passage are sufiicient: 1. It is 
necessary for us to know what is meant by the " mys- 
tery." This the apostle defines most explicitly, in Ephe- 
sians iii, 6, to be, " That the Gentiles should be fellow- 
heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise 
in Christ by the Gospel." We see, then, that the "mys- 
tery " is the bringing in of the Gentiles to be fellow-heirs 
with the Jews. 2. The second observation is, to notice 
how this is done. The text in hand says that it is " to 
all nations for the obedience of faith." We conclude, 
therefore, since this mystery is the call of the Gentiles, 
from the fact that it is to " all nations," and as it is 
" for the obedience of faith," that it is what the Scripture 
foresaw, " that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENEKATION. 



81 



In thee shall all nations be blessed." This brings us to 
see that St. Paul spoke of justification by faith through- 
out the whole Epistle, and of nothing else, only as mere 
side issues, as his argument led him. This Epistle mani- 
fests great skill and strength of argument; and since its 
inspired author has distinctly mentioned in every chapter 
some characteristic of justification by faith, as taught in 
the Abrahamic covenant, such as " faith," " believeth," 
''the promise," "justification," "Jesus Christ," "Abra- 
ham," " Abraham's seed," etc., he must have a peculiarly- 
sharp theological vision who can see the doctrine of entire 
sanctification, as a subsequent work in the soul to that of 
regeneration, any where taught in the whole Epistle, un- 
less he assume that the two are the same always, and 
obtained at the same time, which assumption has not been 
made on the part of any of our writers. It is further to 
be observed that what is here said on Romans may be 
said of every Epistle that ever St. Paul wrote. It may 
be also said that there never was a Gospel sermon 
preached since the first promise of the Savior but what 
pertained to justification hy faith in some way or another ; 
for if the sermon was on faith, that is the term on man's 
part in the covenant ; if in any w^ay about Christ, it was 
about God's part in that covenant ; and this part includes 
all that a preacher can say about eternal life. If the dis- 
course should be concerning any act of Christian duty, 
covered by the keeping of the moral law, then it was the 
fruit of the justified relation that the sermon set forth, 
and so on, in every respect, the Gospel, all told, is found 
in the Abrahamic covenant, and justification hy faith, as 
used by St. Paul, includes it all, as to the present life. 
In the beginning of this fourth argument we proposed to 
present it under two general heads. Having treated of 
the first, the point to be discussed is, 

II. That regeneration, as taught in the Epistle to the 
Romans, is an absolutely sinless state of the soul. 



82 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

We can not easily fail to prove this proposition, if the 
former one in this argument has been successfully dis- 
cussed. Since that, however, is now submitted to the 
unprejudiced reader, we propose to notice, 

1. St. Paul's confidence in regeneration: "For I am 
not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ : for it is the power 
of God unto salvation." Rom. i, 16. (a) It has been 
shown that the Epistle to the Romans throughout speaks 
of regeneration only, as an inward work of the soul. 
(5) This is, practically, the " Gospel of Christ," above 
spoken of. (c) This "Gospel of Christ" is the "power 
of God unto salvation." (d) Therefore, logically, regen- 
eration in the soul is the power of God unto the salvation 
of that soul, (e) There can be no doubt about the salva- 
tion being eternal, for if it were not, then the " power of 
God" would be limited, confining the salvation to a mere 
degree in its efi'ects, or merely to time as to its duration. 
Eternal salvation is clearly understood by all our com- 
mentators on this passage ; less than this perhaps none 
would think of. " As St. Paul comprises the sum of the 
Gospel in this Epistle, so he does the sum of the Epistle 
in this and the following verse." (Wesley's Note.) "The 
Gospel had power to effect," says Mr. Watson, " the con- 
sequent restoration of man to the Divine favor and image 
and to IMMORTALITY and changeless blessedness." (Ex- 
position.) Now, if eternal salvation is meant here, which 
none can deny, if God saves men with such a salvation, 
and if regeneration be not an absolutely-sinless state of 
the soul, then it follows that that blessing is either such a 
sinless state or that God saves, with an eternal salvation, 
the soul which is partly sinful. What shall we say to 
this ? Which of the tAvo shall we most reasonably beheve? 

2. The regenerated state, included in the justified rela- 
tion, fully excuses such a regenerated soul from further 
preparation to meet God, and if so excused from further 
inward preparation, an absolutely-sinless state is implied, 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



83 



otherwise God saves men eternally, although not in a 
completely-sinless condition. "What then? are we [Jews] 
better than they, [the Gentiles ?] No, in no wise : for we 
have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are 
all under sin ; as it is written, There is none righteous, 
no, not one." iii, 9, 10. 

In this passage St. Paul holds that the Jew is just as 
sinful as the Gentile, and this he proves to show the Jew 
his need of justification and regeneration through faith in 
Christ — a necessity founded qp. the fact, that, under the 
curse of Adam, "there is none righteous." Now, the 
thing implied in this passage is this : Paul means, in ar- 
guing with the J ew, to convey to him the idea that if God 
could find any one, on the whole face of the earth, who 
was JUST, that is, a justified and regenerated man, then 
he would excuse such a one from justification, and would 
save him eternally in heaven without requiring him to 
seek such a blessing. He virtually says to them, " I find 
you Jews just as guilty and as much under the curse as 
the Gentiles, and therefore there is no excuse for you but 
to be justified and regenerated, [you are equally guilty 
with the despised Gentiles,] ' That every mouth may be 
stopped, and all the world may become guilty before 
God.' " We conclude, then, that this language teaches 
that had God found any just men on the earth, who had 
not been afi"ected by the Fall, such he would have excused 
from being justified. Hence, he urges on them justifica- 
tion, as a substitute for a supposed natural goodness which 
they thought was acceptable with God ; such justification 
implies a full excuse from God from any further prepa- 
ration for heaven. Christ himself taught that the " ninety- 
and-nine just persons " " needed no repentance." Now, 
since a final and eternal salvation is implied in the sufl5- 
ciency of justification and regeneration, we are bound to 
consider the latter a sinless state, or sin can enter heaven. 

3. The blood of Christ, as our propitiatory sacrifice, 



84 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



cleanses from " all sm." " Whom God hath set forth to 
be a propitiation, through faith in his blood." iii, 25. {a) 
His blood," found in the Epistle above quoted, St. John 
says, " cleans eth us from all sin." 1 John i, 7. And 
this is a proof passage used by those who hold to the 
theory of entire sanctification. (h) This all-cleansing 
benefit of Christ's blood is obtained " through faith." (c) 
The whole Epistle shows that this faith is no more than 
justifying faith. For immediately after the expression, 
"through faith in his blood," he says, "to declare his 
righteousness \_dLy.aio(jwriq^ justification^^ for the remission 
of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." 
Then he repeats it, as if to give it emphasis, " To declare, 
I say, at this time his righteousness, [diy.aLo<juvrjq^ justifica- 
tioUjI that he nfight be just, and the justifier of him which 
believeth in Jesus." Now, if this is not merely justifying 
faith, then, truly, St. Paul is not teaching justification at 
all, but something else. Reader, what shall we call it ? (d) 
Our better judgment says that it is no other than simply 
justifying, since this faith is the condition in the scheme 
of mercy whereby man is to receive the Divine favor. 
The context shows that St. Paul is not only teaching 
justification by faith, but that he teaches it in the cove- 
nant, and thereby constantly uses faith as the condition 
of that covenant, (e) If it is only justifying faith, if re- 
generation is the " concomitant " of justification, then this 
state is a sinless one — absolutely so, since the faith spoken 
of is "in his blood," here represented as applied in the 
very act of one's justification; which blood, it has been 
shown, " cleanseth us from all sin." (/) In the face of 
all this. Dr. Peck, apparently in order to disentangle him- 
self from inextricable difficulties, actually invented another 
faith, greater and more efficient than that taught by St. 
Paul. He says, " This great difference between the 
faith which justifies and that which sanctifies wholly, is, 
that the former contemplates simple pardon, or the cancel- 



Arc. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



85 



ing of guilt, while the latter respects the destruction of 
inward sin, and the entire restoration of the divine imao-e.'' 
(Christian Perfection, p. 254.) Paul says, "One faith," 
Dr. P. says two^ as to degree ; and the covenant, as to its 
nature^ says one faith. And all the definitions of regen- 
eration, as given by Mr. Watson, the other authors, the 
adopted Catechism of our Church, and the Bible, also, 
declare that in the moment of our regeneration the soul 
is in the image of God; but according to Dr. Peck, this 
extra^ this intensified faith alone respects the " restoration 
of the divine image." 

4. Justification and regeneration save the soul eternally, 
according to a plain promise in this Epistle. But God 
commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet 
sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now 
justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath 
THROUGH HIM." V, 8, 9. (d) The idea taught in this 
quotation is, that if God, unconditionally and of free grace, 
on his own part manifested his love toward us while we 
were yet aliens, by giving his Son to die for us, by how 
much more, therefore, will he manifest his love toward us 
in our eternal salvation from wrath, since the blood of 
Christ has become the procuring cause of our salvation 
through the obedience of faith, (h) The phrase, being 
now justified by his blood," must be taken in the sense 
of an atonement having been made for us, by which, 
through faith therein, we have justification, (c) This 
justification, thus procured for us by means of the merito- 
rious blood of Christ, covers the whole case — includes all 
the work in the soul as a fitness for heaven ; for the pas- 
sage does not imply that Christ is the meritorious cause 
of entire sanctification, as some use this phrase, but sim- 
ply of our justification, and the blessing connected there- 
with, (d) Our commentators plainly understood St. Paul 
here to mean by the phrase, " saved from wrath," an 
eternal salvation in heaven, from the wrath of an endless 



86 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOJf. [Paet I. 



perdition. Mr. Wesley says, " From all the effects of the 
wrath of God." Mr. Benson says, '^Yvom future punish- 
ment, from the vengeance of eternal fire.'' (e) Conclusion : 
Justification and regeneration will save a soul from eter- 
nal fire. But if saved from eternal fire, that soul must 
dwell in the eternal, final heaven of God's people ; but if 
it dwell in heaven eternally, it must be absolutely sinless, 
since none but such can enter there ; and, therefore, the 
justified and regenerated soul is ahsolutely sinless. 

5. The Epistle teaches that the justification of God 
was spoken of by the prophets, and it behooves us to 
observe in what maymer they spoke of it. "Now the 
righteousness [pty.aw(Tbvrj^ jmtificatioii] of God without the 
law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the 
prophets; even the righteousness [dixawtrwrj, justifica- 
tion'] of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, 
•and upon all them that believe." iii, 21, 22. (a) From 
this passage we see that what St. Paul means in verse 
21 by the justification of God, he defines in verse 22 to 
be the justification hi/ faith, which comes "upon all them 
that believe." (h) But he says that the "prophets" 
" witnessed " this justification ; that is, they predicted it, 
as the great dispensation of the coming Messiah ; this is 
certain, since he says that it was witnessed " by the law," 
as well as by the prophets; it is also certain, because he 
says that by the law and the prophets it " is mani- 
fested" — -£(l'a>ipcoTa'., Jias been manifested — as a past act 
having a present consequence, which consequence is the 
existence of the prophetic books of Scripture. Dr. 
Clarke says it is by the preachings and p>redictions^'' 
of the prophets that this justification was manifested. 
{c) The testimony which Ezekiel bears on this point is 
clear : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
ye shall be cleax; from all your filthixess, and from 
ALL your idols, will I cleanse you. A xew heart also 
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



87 



and I Avill take away the stony heart out of your flesh, 
and I will give you a heart op flesh. And I m\l put 
my Spirit within you. ... I will save you from all 
your uncleannesses." Ezek. xxxvi, 25-29. "And he 
shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." Psalm 
cxxx, 8. (d) These two passages are prophetic of Christ's 
kingdom, and they are both quoted by our standard 
authors on Christian perfection. Mr. Wesley quotes 
them on the 52d page of the "Plain Account of Chris- 
tian Perfection," and Dr. Peck on the 217th page of his 
work — abridged edition ; they both use these passages, as 
proofs, in some way, of their view of entire sanctification. 
(e) The conclusion stands thus : St. Paul speaks of justi- 
fication and regeneration in the above-quoted passage, in 
which he says that the prophets spoke of or left written 
predictions concerning it. But these prophets, when ex- 
pressly speaking of Christ's kingdom, describe the state 
of the soul of God's people as absolutely sinless by 
passages that entire sanctificationists themselves take as 
proofs of their view of the subject ; but they hold that one 
" wholly sanctified" is then actually sinless in soul. There- 
fore, since the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Paul were all speak- 
ing of regeneration, it follows that it is an entirely-sin- 
less state, entire sanctificationists themselves being judges. 

6. The Epistle to the Romans further teaches that re- 
generation affords a clean heart, as in the case of David. 
For it says, "Faith is counted for justification. Even 
as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto 
whom God imputeth justification without works." iv, 6. 
(a) St. Paul is here reasoning with' the Jew about justi- 
fication and regeneration. (6) He teaches that David 
taught the same thing ; for the " blessedness " mentioned 
by David, he calls, in verse 9, "this blessedness," and 
then proceeds to show that it will come on the Gentiles as 
well as on the Jews, because Abraham received the same 
thing about fourteen years before he was circumcised, 



88 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



thereby showing that the act of circumcision, subsequent 
to the pardon of sin, had nothing to do with procuring 
that pardon, but that it was all through faith, and there- 
fore equally possible for the Gentile. According to Rev. 
Richard Watson, also, (Institutes, Vol. ii, p. 213, chap, 
xxiii,) David and Paul were teaching the same doc- 
trine, which all agree was justification and regeneration. 
(e) But from the order of the Psalms, this being found 
in the thirty-second Psalm, where David speaks of justi- 
fication, it is presumable that this occurred before he 
committed adultery with Bathsheba, which he repented 
of, as found in the fifty-first Psalm, (d) But in this 
Psalm he prays God to " restore [which means to give 
bach what one had before] unto me the joy of thy salva- 
tion now, synonymous with his restoration he prays for 
a ^' CLEAN heart," and for the blotting out of " all mine 
iniquities." And since he prayed to be thus restored, 
this was the spiritual condition of his soul as mentioned 
in the thirty-second Psalm before he sinned; but this 
was no more than justification and regeneration, according 
to St. Paul; therefore, regeneration means a clean 
HEART, and the blotting out of all iniquity; conse- 
quently, an absolutely-sinless state of the soul. 

7. Our Epistle represents water-baptism as the sign 
of a perfectly-sinless condition of the soul, and that is 
REGENERATION. " How shall wc that are dead to sin, live 
any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us 
as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized info his 
death?" vi, 3. (a) The apostle shows the Romans that 
they can not continue in sin, or have any fellowship with 
it, because they had taken upon themselves the Christian, 
baptismal vow. (b) This vow regards water-baptism as 
the sign of all that the Holy Ghost ever does for the 
soul while on earth, by way of purifying it. Our seven- 
teenth Article of Religion, found in our Discipline, says, 
"Baptism ... is also a sign of regeneration, or of the 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



89 



netv birth.^' Mr. Watson says, '*As a sign, baptism is 
more than circumcision, because tbe covenant, under its 
new dispensation, was not only to offer pardon upon 
believing, deliverance from the bondage of fleshly appe- 
tites, and a peculiar spiritual relation to God, all which 
we find under the Old Testament, but also to bestow the 
Holy Spirit,m his fullness, upon all believers ; and of this 
effusion of ' the power from on high,' baptism was made 
the visible sign."^ Now, I think that any orthodox 
Christian and theologian can fully indorse the Article of 
our Religion, quoted above, and also the quotation from 
Mr. Watson, so far as relates to the point in question. 
(c) There are three corresponding points to be observed: 
(1.) In our Article of Religion, baptism is said to be a 
sign of regeneration, and not a sign of any greater work 
in the soul. (2.) Mr. Watson says it is the "visible sign" 
of the FULLNESS of the Holy Spirit upon all believers. 
(3.) St. Paul refers to it as the sign of regeneration, and 
so our Article of Religion and Mr. Watson just agree 
with the apostle, (d) But when St. Paul taught, as an 
immediate context to this passage, that the justified man 
is dead to sin; when he told the Church that their bap- 
tism by water had respect to an absolutely-sinless state; 
when our Article of Religion says that it is a sign of re- 
generation or the new birth ; when Mr. Watson says that 
it is the sign of the fullness of the Holy Spirit on be- 
lievers, dear reader, what, in the name of common-sense, 
do men mean w^hen they write and talk about w^hat they 
call " entire sanctification," as an additional, greater, and 
subsequent work to that of regeneration, when this last 
is the thing signified by the sign baptism, and that thing 
so signified, one of the greatest theologians that the world 
ever had declares to be the fullness of the Holy Spirit 
to the believer? Granting such a thing as entire sancti- 
fication, in the sense in which they hold it, can it mean 

* Institutes, VoL ii, Part Fourth, chap, iii, p. 626. 

8 



90 REVIEW OF WESLEY AN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

more, as a work in the heart, than the fullness of the 
Spirit ? Is there more than totality in any thing ? Is the 
Holj Spirit more than himself? Therefore, it is con- 
clusive that regeneration is an absolutely-sinless state 
of the soul, if it be granted that the fullness of the 
Holy Spirit can produce such a state. 

8. The book of Romans further teaches that regenera- 
tion is a sinless state, in an entire degree, because our 
old man is crucified. Knowing this, that our old man is 
crucified with him, that the body of sin might be de- 
stroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." vi, 6. 
(a) We may observe here, that, as it has been shown in 
the former division of this argument, the apostle in this 
passage is speaking of justification and regeneration, as is 
seen by, (1.) The scope of the Epistle; (2.) By the context; 
(3.) By the use of a form of the very word to justify, itself, 
as found in the next verse, which verbally rendered is : 
" For he that is dead is justified from sin." (h) The word 
crucify means a whole and complete death of that which 
is said to be crucified, and not a merely partial death, 
(c) Our standard authors understood this passage in 
Romans to mean a complete destruction of sin, in the 
sense in which they understood what they call entire 
sanctification. For, in answer to the Calvinistic doctrine 
of man not being sanctified wholly till death, or about 
that time, Rev. Richard Watson, in his third objection to 
such an opinion, says, "The doctrine before us is dis- 
proved by those passages of Scripture which connect our 
entire sanctification Avith subsequent habits and acts to be 
exhibited in the conduct of believers before death. So in 
the quotation from Rom. vi, just given, 'knowing this, 
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
we should not serve sin.' The reader will take notice 
that Mr. Watson calls this one of the passages of Scrip- 
ture "which connect our entire sanctificatio7i with subse- 

* Institutes, VoL ii, chap, xxix, p. 452. 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND KEGENERATION. 91 



quent habits and acts." Consequently, in his estimation, 
the crucifying of the old man is a complete destruction 
of sin — an entirely-sinless state of the soul. Dr. Peck 
says, entire sanctification "is most generally presented 
by the apostle as embracing two points : (1.) The death 
or destruction of sin; and, (2.) The spiritual resurrection 
or the life of grace. This is clearly set forth by St. Paul 
thus" — here he quotes Rom. vi, 1-11, the very passage 
under examination, as his proof, and further says — "In 
this passage two great principles presented fully to the view 
are, the death of the body of sin, and the restoration of the 
soul to a neiv and spiritual life."* Dr. Adam Clarke, on 
the phrase, our old man is crucified with him, says : " We 
find that r.olaio^ avOpcjr.oq — the old man — used here and in 
Eph. iv, 22, and Col. iii, 9, is the same as the flesh ivith its 
affections and lusts, Gal. v, 24, and the body of the sins of 
the flesh, Col. ii, 11 ; and the very same which . . . we 
mean by indwelling sin, or the infectioii of our nature in 
consequence of the fall. From all which we may learn 
that the design of God is to counterwork and destroy the 
very spirit and soul of sin that we shall no longer serve 
it — dooXeoetv^ no longer be its slaves. Nor shall it any 
more be capable of performing its essential functions than 
a dead body can perform the functions of natural life." 
In the above quotation the italics are the Doctor's own, 
just as I should desire them myself. Mr. Wesley, defin- 
ing the phrase our old man, says, " A strong and beautiful 
expression for that entire depravity and corruption 
which by nature spreads over the tvhole man, leaving no 
part uninfected. This in a believer is crucified tvith Christ, 
mortified, gradually killed, by virtue of our union with 
him." Can any words be stronger to show the absolute 
destruction of sin in the heart of a justified man than 
this ? Observe the capitals above, by which he defines 
the old man, and then tells us that he is crucified in a 

"-•'"Christian Perfection Abridged, pp. 38, 39, 



92 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



believer, and hilled. Mr. Benson adopts the very words 
of Mr. Wesley. From these authors there can be no 
doubt but that they take this passage as a proof of their 
view of entire sanctification, since both their comments and 
their works on the subject show it. {d) Before leaving 
this point it may be well to add more proof to show that 
this proof-passage of entire sanctification, in which an 
entirely-sinless state of the soul is taught and believed by 
all, is, nevertheless, merely the justified relation and the 
regenerated state. This is argued under {a) from three 
considerations there given; yet we wish the entire sanc- 
tificationist to observe something further on this part of 
the argument. The fair translation of the original, suita- 
ble to the idiom of our language, is, For he that is dead 
is justified from sin." (1.) The word justified^ here used, 
which in our Testament has been translated is freed," is 
the same verb that is rendered "being justified" — v, 1 — 
"justified" — V, 9, and iii, 28 — besides many other places 
throughout the New Testament. I say this for the ben- 
efit of those unacquainted with Greek. (2.) The marginal 
note in our English reference Bibles is justified ^ (3.) 
Our commentators have translated it verbally. Mr. Ben- 
son says, " The original expression, here rendered is freed, 
is dedcxatwrat, which properly signifies is justified; that is, 
he is acquitted and discharged from any further claim 
which sin might make upon his service. The word as here 
used implies that a sense of justification by the cross 
of Christ is the great means of our delivery from the 
BONDAGE OF SIN, as it animates and exercises us to shake 
olF its yoke, and is accompanied with the spirit of adop- 
tion AND REGENERATION, the fruit of which is always lib- 
erty." Now, reader, observe two things: First. The 
word impending he translates is justified, and he uses 
the word justification, above in capitals. Second. What 
does he mean by those other words in capitals? Pause 
and think. Do they not mean as much as any man can 



Arg. IV.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



93 



conceive of by the phrase " entire sanctificaiion f ' Do 
they not mean that the soul, when once justified, is 
actually as much saved from the power and dominion 
of sin as ever it will be at this side of heaven? If 
they do not, was not Mr. Benson very unfortunate in 
the use of words to convey to the reader what the pas- 
sage means when he used those terms in capitals? We 
will now hear Dr. Adam Clarke on the same passage. 
He says, Aedtxatojrai, literally, is justified from sin, or is 
freed or delivered from it. Does not this simply mean 
that the man who has received Christ Jesus by faith, and 
• has been, through believing, made a partaker of the Holy 
Spirit, has had his old m an, all his evil propensities, de- 
stroyed, so that he is not only justified freely from all 
sin, but WHOLLY SANCTIFIED unto God ? The context 
SHOWS that this is the meaning." Now, reader, observe 
two things again : First. He says that this work, here 
spoken of, is justification, and so translates and under- 
stands the word in the text. Second. He actually says 
that it IS e7itire sanctificaiion, and that " all his evil p)ro- 
pensities are destroyed^'' Think again : is not this abso- 
lute sinlessness of soul f I mean a soul as free from sin 
by justification and regeneration as others mean by what 
they call " entire sanctification." Now, is it not evident 
that, when our commentators tried to make out what they 
call entire sanctification, they were wandering in the dark, 
and found here and there passages of Scripture where the 
inspired writer was treating of justification, and where he 
was so clear that they could not help but see that his 
theme was really justification; yet, on the other hand, 
they found the same inspired wTiter so strong that they 
are constrained to call this mere justification, as treated 
by such writer, entire sanctification? The justified and 
regenerated are, therefore, from the comments as quoted, 
to be regarded as completely sinless in soul ; that is, as 
thoroughly cleansed from sin as those are who profess 



94 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

entire sanctification. (e) There is one thing yet to be 
considered; namely, the yap — gar, ''for" — in the seventh 
verse. This "word is used to join on a cmise. It connects 
the seventh verse with the sixth. The sixth reads thus : 
" Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
we should not serve sin." Then the "/o?*" joins on the 
cause, which is stated in the seventh verse : 'Tor he that 
is dead is justified from sin." Xow, can any thing in the 
world be plainer to the human understanding than that 
the phi-ase old man is crucified ivitli him. in the sixth 
verse, and the phrase is justified, in the seventh, mean 
one and the same ? But Mr. Wesley, Mr. Watson, Dr. 
Adam Clarke, and Dr. Peck take the phrase is crucified, 
in the sixth verse, as a proof of entire sanctification ; and 
since the apostle gave justification as a reason of the old 
man being crucified, it follows that justification includes 
as sinless a state of the soul as it is conceivable for any 
soul to be in on earth. If this is not the case the Bible 
is a book of incomprehensible terms, and our learned com- 
mentators have only conceived darkness and brought forth 
confusion on this subject. Let no man judge us here 
harshly till he remove the difficulties which we point out 
in this investigation. 

9. The apostle calls the Romans the elect, which shows 
that they were in a state of sinlessness of heart when re- 
generated. "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of 
God's elect?" viii, 33. {a) It is necessary for us to de- 
fine the word elect in the Christian sense. It means 
chosen; but hoiv chosen, is a question on which there has 
been much dispute, and which is not to be settled in this 
argument. The Arminian view of the word will be suffi- 
cient at present. Mr. Watson says, "In a word, 'the 
elect ' are the body of true believers ; and personal elec- 
tion into the family of God is through personal faith. All 
who truly believe are elected, and all to whom the Gospel 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



95 



is sent have, through the grace that accompanies it, the 
power to believe placed within their reach ; and all such 
might, therefore, attain to the grace of personal elec- 
tion."* This definition, in a personal respect, will suit 
any Arminian. " Personal faith " makes the personal 
election. This is God's eternal decree of election. We 
see, then, that the elect are those who are living in ac- 
cordance with the Abrahamic covenant; and if so, as 
before seen and argued, they are simply justified and 
regenerated as Abraham was. (h) It behooves us now 
to shoAV that the elect, the believers, the justified and regen- 
erated, as they stand in the covenant, are such as God 
saves. In proof of this. Dr. Adam Clarke's comment on 
this very passage is as strong as any man can write to 
show the eternal salvation of the elect. 'He says, " This 
and the two following verses contain a string of questions 
most appropriately introduced, and most powerfully urged, 
tending to show the safety of the state of those who 
have BELIEVED the Gospel of the grace of God. I shall 
lay these verses down as they are pointed by the best 
Greek critics : ' Who shall lay any thing to the charge of 
God's elect ? God who justifieth ? Who is he that con- 
demneth? Christ who died? Or rather is risen again? 
He who is at the right hand of God? He who maketh 
intercession for us ? Who shall separate us from the love 
of Christ? Tribulation? or distress? or persecution? or 
famine? or nakedness? or peril? or sword?' In all these 
questions the apostle intimates that, if neither God nor 
Christ would bring any charge against them who love 
him, none else could. And as God justifies through 
Christ who died, consequently no charge can lie against 
these persons, as God alone could produce any ; and he, 
so far from doing this, has justified, freely forgiven them 
their trespasses." {c) Now, let us come' to some conclu- 
sion here. It is plain, from the latter clause of the verse 

* Theological Dictionary. Article election. 



96 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

itself, that when St. Paul uses the expression " it is God 
that justifieth/' he means that the man who is elect and 
the man who is justified are the same. Dr. Clarke uses 
the words in the same sense; for he says, " As God just- 
ifies, through Christ who died, consequently no charge 
CAN lie against these [elect] persons, as God alone could 
produce any ; and he, so far from doing this, has justi- 
fied, freely forgiven them their trespasses." Can any 
thing stronger be said of what some call entire sanctifi- 
cation, by way of a fitness for eternity, than is said here 
by St. Paul, as the Doctor says the " best Greek critics " 
have pointed the text? Can any man state salvation in 
stronger terms than to say that " no charge can lie against" 
one justified? Very true, indeed — very sensible — very 
Scriptural ; for how can God justify a soul so that nei- 
ther God nor Christ would bring any charge against" him 
while he lives in this state of regeneration, and then con- 
demn him if he die ? Is dying a sin that will exclude the 
regenerated from eternal glory ? Nay, in all these 
things we are more than conquerors through him that 
hath loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death 
. . . nor any other creature shall be able to separate 
us [the justified^ the regenerated, the elect, as the passage 
itself and our standard authors say] from the love of God 
['shed abroad in our hearts' when justified, chap, v, 5] 
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" — which is in the just- 
ified relation, as the phrase "in Christ" means. Mr. 
Benson, on the phrase, it is God that justifieth, says, 
" Acquits them from condemnation, and accounts them 
righteous ; and his power and authority are supreme over 
all creatures; he can and will answer all objections 
against them, and pronounce them absolved now, and at 
the DAY OF final JUDGMENT." Now, I appeal to the 
judgment of the reader: can the doctrine, which some 
call entire sanctification, do any more for the soul of man 
than pronounce him absolved now, and at the day of final 



Arg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



97 



JUDGMENT ?. Is there any sin in the heart of a man that 
God would so acquit and finally save ? If so, does not 
sin enter the final heaven? I, therefore, hold that the 
justified and regenerated soul is as absolutely sinless as a 
soul can be on earth, or as God requires it to be. It is 
the strangest thing, that great and learned men, who have 
held to such a theory, did not see the absurdity of preach- 
ing, talking, writing, and enforcing such a doctrine, when 
they are continually exhausting the vocabulary of their 
language in the most expressive manner concerning justi- 
fication, wherein they make it equal to our highest con- 
ceptions of the purity of the heart — even calling it entire 
sanctification, and attributing to it final and eternal sal- 
vation. 

10. The kingdom of God excludes the so-called entire 
sanctification, and hence, if the soul is saved at all, it 
must be entirely cleansed in regeneration, which would 
make this an absolutely-sinless state. " For the kingdom of 
God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, \_8cxacoffU'^T^, 
justification,'] and peace, and joy, in the Holy Ghost." 
xiv, 17. (a) The " kingdom of God," in this passage, 
means the inward spiritual enjoyment of the Christian, as 
the words peace, joy, and the ^oly Ghost imply, (b) The 
whole kingdom of God, the apostle means, as in the heart 
of the believer, consists in justification, and the three re- 
sults of it which he mentions, namely, peace, joy, and the 
ffoly Ghost. These three results of the justified relation 
he also mentions in the forepart of the fifth chapter, 
where he first states the kingdom in the wwds, There- 
fore being justified by faith," and then gives the results, 
namely, " we have peace," and we " rejoice " by the 
Holy Ghost given unto us." This justification, therefore, 
with its results, is all the kingdom — all told. God is 
then the believer's Father ; he has the Son for his Savior; 
he has the Holy Ghost for his Comforter ; he is a son of 

God; he is adopted; he has the constant witness of the 

9 



98 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



Spirit while in this state ; he is an heir ; he is Christ's ; 
he is God's, because Christ is God's ; he is a child of 
Abraham ; he is blessed with Abraham ; he is risen with 
Christ ; he is renewed after the image of Him that created 
him ; he is born of God ; he is a new creature ; his life is 
hid with Christ in God; he is free; his old man is cruci- 
fied; the body of sin is destroyed; the flesh is crucified 
with the affections and lusts ; he has Christ formed within ; 
he is dead to sin; he is alive with Christ; he is regener- 
ated; he is passed from death unto life; he is quickened; 
he is saved; and whatsoever good thing else that can be 
thought of or expressed, is characteristic of the regener- 
ated man. How, then, can sin exist in him? For Mr. 
Wesley says, " Yet sin remains in him, yea, the seed of 
all sin, till he is sanctified throughout."^ But take par- 
ticular notice that sanctification is no part of St. Paul's 
definition of the inward kingdom as given above, but the 
kingdom is defined without such a word or idea more 
than what belongs to justification ; therefore, all things 
considered in the exposition of the passage, we conclude 
that a regenerated soul is sinless. 

11. The Epistle to the Romans teaches that the want 
of justification and regeneration is the cause of the con- 
demnation of the soul. " Tribulation and anguish, upon 
every soul of man that doeth evil." ii, 9. (a) The apostle 
shows that this is the final doom of all unbelievers who will 
not receive justification by faith. This he gives, as the 
context and scope of the Epistle show, not as the doom of 
those who are not entirely sanctified, as this phrase is un- 
derstood, but as the absolute fate of such as reject justi- 
fication and regeneration, (b) If the want, therefore, of 
regeneration condemns the soul, it is but reasonable to 
conclude that its presence in the soul will save; so it is 
said to be a poor rule that will not work both ways ; for 
eternal salvation through faith — man's part in the cove- 

* Plain Account of Christian Perfection, p. 48. 



Aeg. IV.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



99 



nant — is a clearly-revealed truth of the Bible, and equally 
clear is the doctrine of eternal damnation " through 
unbelief — man's disobedience to the term in the covenant. 
But the former only makes the soul to be in the relation 
and blessedness of the justified, and the latter simply 
debars the soul from that relation. Therefore, if the 
unjustified relation procures eternal condemnation, which 
all orthodox men believe, why not the justified relation 
also procure eternal salvation? And if eternal, then, it 
is a sinless state of the soul, unless God saves men partly 
in their sins, which none can believe who are not infidel. 
Indeed, it is as insensible, and in every way as unreason- 
able, to say that one justified, who, by virtue of his just- 
ified relation, stands " blessed with faithful Abraham " in 
the covenant, is only partially saved from sin and its 
influences, as it is to say that the unbeliever, who is 
absolutely an alien from God by virtue of his non-com- 
pliance with the term of the covenant through which we 
have a conditional salvation, is partly saved ; if belief to 
the partaking of the spiritual benefit of the covenant is 
not a full salvation, unbelief unto condemnation can not 
be a total damnation. But all such notion as this — al- 
though, I think, fair, analogous reasoning — is certainly 
unscriptural ; for, "He that believeth [that fills man's 
part in the covenant] on the Son [God's part in the 
covenant] hath everlasting life : [as a result from the 
Son;] and he that believeth not [that does not fill man's 
part in the covenant] the Son, [God's olfer to him in the 
covenant,] shall not see life, [a benefit had through the 
Son only ;] but the wrath of God abideth on him." 
There can be no half-way salvation. Man is either just- 
ified or condemned — in a state of salvation or of con- 
demnation. He is either in the covenant or out of it. 
"No man can serve two masters." "He that is not with 
me is against me." " He that believeth not, is condemned 

ALREADY." 



100 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

12. There is not a single passage in the whole Epistle 
to the Romans where the verb to sanctify^ and the noun 
sandifieation, would teach such a doctrine as entire sancti- 
fication, so termed. For the verb to sanctify occurs only 
once in the whole Epistle; namely, xv, 16. The noun 
sanctification occurs only twice; namely, vi, 19, 22. In 
both these places dyca(T/j.6<;, hagiasmos, is translated holi- 
ness." (a) Since the passage where the verb occurs — 
XV, 16 — does not mean the inward work, and since it 
will be argued in its proper place, it need only be said 
here that it does not mean entire sanctification. As to 
the two passages where the noun is found, it is also 
enough to say, now, that they will be explained in the 
proper argument, where they will be shown to signify 
the fruit of the justified relation, and not a subsequent 
inward work to that of regeneration. (h) It is also 
proper to observe, that even entire sanctificationists, as 
such, do not, to the best of our knowledge, use any one 
of these three texts as proof of their theory, (c) Yet it 
should not be forgotten that St. Paul preached to the 
Romans the Gospel — all the Gospel, and he said that he 
was not ashamed of it, that it was the power of God 
unto salvation; and yet he never so much as once gave 
the advocates of their peculiar system a proof-passage in 
their favor in this Epistle. It is very true they have 
taken the sixth chapter, as far as the eleventh verse, and 
have tried to make it their own; but their own comments 
on this passage will condemn their theory more than 
sustain it, from the manifest aeknoivledgments of the ex- 
cellency of justification to save entirely and eternally 
from sin. 

On the other hand, the verb to justify and the noun 
justification occur very many times all through the Epistle, 
and that, too, where the apostle is in the most argument- 
ative manner presenting to their minds justification ; and 
he does it sufficiently for their salvation if they believe, 



Arg. v.] justification and regeneration. 101 



and for their condemnation if they do not believe. Con- 
sequently, in the nature of the case, regeneration is a 
sinless state, or else St. Paul would have preached to the 
Romans a sinless salvation, a thing which he did not do 
unless it be in regeneration. Which will we do? Believe 
the doctrine he preached to be a sinless state, or the ideal 
doctrine which he did not preach? 



ARGUMENT V. 

Regeneration, as a consequence of justification, is 
the only inward and spiritual blessing promised to 
men in the present life. 

The promises of Scripture have always been held in 
high estimation by true believers. Whatsoever is left for 
our encouragement we always claim with much assurance. 
If what is called entire sanctifi cation is promised in Scrip- 
ture, we may then believe, teach, and enjoy it as such. 
But there is a strong presumption that it is not promised. 

1. Isaiah liii, 11 : " He shall see of the travail of his 
soul, and shall be satisfied : by his knowledge shall my 
righteous servant justify many ; for he shall bear their 
iniquities.'' (a) Here is a clear prophecy concerning our 
Savior. It is part of a chapter in which the trial, the 
crucifixion, the burial, and the sacrificial character of the 
Messiah, are presented with great clearness and beauty 
of expression. Justification is, also, made a part of this 
remarkable prediction. " He shall justify many." Here 
is a plain promise as to the work of the Messiah when he 
should come. It does not say he will "sanctify them 
wholly :" he meant by justifying them all that is intended 
in such phraseology. The fact that there really is a cer- 
tain sanctification mentioned in Scripture, had through 



102 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



Christ who is our " sanctification," 1 Cor. i, 30, no one 
of candid inquiry will doubt. But two things are to be 
observed as to this objection. (1.) What that sanctification 
is remains in part to be settled. (2.) The prophet speaks 
with special distinction of Christ, as one who should 
justify — in the highest sense of his office as a pardoning 
God — -/.ar l^oyr^v^ in preeminence. Had he made a promise 
that believers, several years after they were justified, 
should receive what some deem the great blessing of 
complete sanctity, then there would be some hope for 
that doctrine; but he has left us no other promise, and 
consequently has not demanded of us any thing more, as 
a work of grace in the heart, than to be justified in the 
same manner and through the same covenant with faith- 
ful Abraham." (6) Justification in this prediction can 
not be said to be Christ's dying upon the cross, in the 
sense of making an atonement for us, for he actually died 
" for every man," so far as it respects his death as sacri- 
ficial. He thus sufi*ered " for every man," whether his 
name, as the Redeemer, shall be heard of among men 
every-where or not. But in this case it is said that "by 
his KNOWLEDGE he shall justify many," which accords with 
Messiah's prayer : " This is life eternal, that they might 
KNOW thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom 
thou hast sent." Now, that this "eternal life" is the re- 
generated state, as a consequence of the prophetic justifi- 
cation, is evident from two considerations. (1.) It is 
attained through faith, an experimental knowledge, the 
term of the covenant on the part of man wherein we find 
justification: "He that believeth on the Son hath ever- 
lasting life." (2.) It is said that knoiving him is life 
eternal. This the prophet calls justification: "By his 
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." 
So justification is all the blessing promised — all that Christ 
prayed for upon his disciples. But the objector may say: 
"Did he not pray for entire sanctification in John xvii, 



Arg. v.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



103 



17?" He did not in the sense in Avhich some use that 
term ; for, first, the word entire is not found in that verse, 
and to use the verb to sanctify, in the sense of " saved 
from all sin," without adding the word '^ivholly, entirely, 
or the like," says Mr. Wesley, "is not proper."-'^ Sec- 
ondly, he says, " Sanctify them through thy truth," and 
then immediately explains his meaning by saying, " thy 
word is truth." But those who hold to entire sanctifica- 
tion, as used, consider it an inward work wrought by the 
Holy Ghost, so that they, considering the w^ork as a moral, 
internal cleansing, can not think, surely, that the word 
can be the agent to perform this work. We may there- 
fore conclude that the word justify, as used by Isaiah, 
includes all, as to the sin-forgiving character of the atone- 
ment of Christ. 

2. Jer. xxxi, 33, 34 : " But this is the covenant that I 
will make with the house of Israel ; After those days, saith 
the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and 
write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they 
shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every 
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 
Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least 
of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I 
will FORGIVE their iniquity, and I will remember their 
SIN NO more." (a) The Christian dispensation is referred 
to in this prophecy, as a time when God should reveal most 
powerfully his great name and grace among men ; when 
the world should become a brotherhood, and when God 
should call the Gentile nations his people, (h) The work 
of divine grace, as mentioned in this prediction, shall be 
the work in the heart; the law shall be ''in their inward 
parts;" it shall be written "in their hearts." (c) The 
forgiveness of sin is made a particular and prominent 
part in this prophecy : I will forgive their iniquity, and I 
will remember tJieir sin no more. 

* Plain Account of Christian Perfection, p. 51. 



104 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

3. Micah vii, 18: "Who is a God like unto thee, that 

PARDONETH INIQUITY, and PASSETH BY THE TRANSGRESSION 

of the REMNANT of his heritage? he retaineth not his 
anger forever, because he dehghteth in mercy." The 
special point in this prophecy, as well as in that just 
quoted from Jeremiah, is the character of the Lord as a 
sin-pardoning God — a God tliat pardoneth iniquity. The 
name by which we shall designate the blessing implied in 
pardon, according to these predictions, is now the question 
in dispute. Is it regeneration or entire sanctification, as 
such? It is the former, from several facts in proof. 
(a) It is acknowledged, (1.) That " the justification of the 
ungodly, the counting or imputation of righteousness, the 
forgiveness of iniquity, and the covering and non-imputa- 
tion of sin, are phrases which have all, perhaps, their 
various shades of meaning, but which express the very 
same blessing under difierent views."^ (2.) That regener- 
ation is a consequence of justification ; that is, the former 
always attends or accompanies the latter, (h) Peter says, 
" To him give all the prophets witness, that through his 
name, whosoever beheveth in him shall receive remission 
of sins." From this passage it appears that we might 
have proof from all the prophets, as well as from a part of 
them, that Christ should come and forgive iniquity. For 
here Peter says they all testify concerning him in this 
particular. (c) Isaiah, as quoted, says that he shall 
JUSTIFY, and Peter here virtually says that this justifica- 
tion is by faith, that whosoever believeth m him shall 
receive remission of sins, (d) The baptism of the Holy 
Ghost, which fell while Peter was preaching, was, from 
the very nature of the case, regeneration to all that be- 
lieved; for, without any doubt, according to received 
theological views, we may regard Isaiah as so teaching, 
since, it is not likely that this great evangehc prophet 
ever spoke of Christ in plainer language than he did in 

* Watson's Theological Dictionary. Article Justification. 



Aeg. v.] justification and regeneration. 



105 



the fifty-third chapter of his prophecy, nor that he ever 
spoke more fully, or meant more in any place in his writ- 
ings, concerning the pardon of sin, than he did when he 
said that by his knowledge Christ should " justify many." 
Hence, there seems to be no impropriety in comparing this 
language with that of Peter, in which we see that this 
justification is by faith, strictly in accordance with all the 
rest of Scripture. 

Now, if we turn to the tenth chapter of Acts, and ex- 
amine Peter's sermon, we find that he, on that occasion, 
preached to the multitude — both Jews and Gentiles — the 
long-looked-for Messiah ; that " all the prophets " gave 
witness, not only concerning him, but also as to his mode 
of forgiving sin ; that it was by faith. This remission of 
sins was attended by the baptism of the Holy Ghost which 
fell on the Gentiles to the utter astonishment of the Jews. 
Besides this, they received water-baptism as a sign of their 
REGENERATION — the sign which takes the place of Jewish 
circumcision. But circumcision was the sign of justifica- 
tion by faith, indicating the regeneration of the heart 
which took place in justification then as well as in this dis- 
pensation. It was not the sign of what men call entire 
sanctification. Now, since this grace on the Gentiles was 
in answer to faith — man's part in the covenant — since it 
embraced in itself a blessing, and consequently had in it 
God's part in the same covenant, which part was to ^' bless 
since Peter says that all the prophets spoke of Christ in 
this capacity ; since Isaiah says that Christ should justify ; 
since regeneration is a " concomitant " of justification ; 
since baptism is a sign of regeneration ; since water-bap- 
tism was used on the occasion, Peter declaring that what 
had been manifested to them was what the prophets fore- 
told when they spoke of the "remission of sins" and of 
"justifying many," we conclude that God never promised 
any other blessing in the sense of entire sanctification, 
than what the early Christians then received while Peter 



106 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

was preaching. But the evidence, as given, shows that 
this — all told — was nothing more, as a work done for and 
in the heart, than simply justification and regeneration. 
This seems quite certain, considering that after Peter 
returned to Jerusalem, having preached this sermon, the 
Jews accused him of being with the Gentiles, saying: 
" Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with 
them." Peter relates that God pointed out to him in a 
vision his duty; how he preached, and how the Holy 
Ghost fell upon them as on us at the beginning. Then 
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, 
John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch, then, as God gave 
them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand 
God?" 

Several points may here be considered : (1.) That it 
was called to the apostle's mind that at the time of John's 
baptism there was a promise given in these words : " Ye 
shall he baptized with the Holy Ghost/' Now, this bap- 
tism, contained in this promise, is said to be by Christ — 
"He that COMETH AFTER me." Therefore, it was the 
baptism of Jesus, and all the Holy Ghost baptism prom- 
ised in the declaration of John the Baptist. It was the 
Comforter, promised by our Lord when he said, " The 
Comforter whom I WILL send unto you from the Father." 
This was the baptism called " the promise of the Father." 
This was the same baptism for which the apostles " tar- 
ried" at Jerusalem. (2.) As it has already been proved 
that this is no other than the blessing which attends every 
one who is justified, let it be particularly noticed that 
there is no other promised, as shown in the first observa- 
tion. In this second, notice, that it Avas this same baptism 
that fell on the apostles on the day of Peiitecost, there being 
no difference between the blessing which an apostle re- 
ceived and that of any other man who is truly blessed by 



Arg. v.] justification and regeneration. 



107 



the Holy Spirit ; for the blessing of the Pentecost was 
simply the prophetic blessing of the prophet Joel, which 
Peter applies alike to all believing Gentiles. (3.) Now, 
that the true believer, of every age and nation, has the 
very same blessing of the soul, the very same baptism of 
the Holy Ghost, is plain, since God is no respecter of per- 
sons, since the gift received by the believing Gentiles, 
called ''the like gift," is }ariv 8a)pew> — iscn dorean, equal 
gift. This I regard as the exact translation, and more 
agreeable to the sense ; for we have seen, from statements 
given, that the apostles and Gentiles in general receive 
the same blessing ; but " like " blessing may convey the 
idea of similarity not incompatible with the idea of ine- 
quality. The word is also translated "equal" in Matt. 
XX, 12, where the first laborers in the vineyard complain 
to their lord, concerning those who had wrought only one 
hour, ''Thou hast made them equal unto us." This 
teaches a correctness both in translation and in idea. 
When we take the language of Peter on the day of Pen- 
tecost, and properly weigh its meaning, our thoughts on 
this subject may be confirmed. He arose and told them 
that this was what the prophet Joel had made his predic- 
tion about, that it " would come to pass in the last days, 
saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, [that 
is, the blessing of Pentecost is what all believers re- 
ceive,] and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, 
and your young men shall see visions, and your old men 
shall dream dreams." The three thousand were con- 
verted — regenerated at once, perfectly fitted for heaven — 
but the prophet did not say that this blessing was what 
is called entire sanctification. Had he designed to give it 
a particular name, he might have consulted Isaiah, and 
might have found it included in that appropriate, clear, 
Biblical one, since he said, " By his knowledge shall my 
righteous servant justify many." Why did not some one 
of the prophets, at least one, predict entire sanctification, 



108 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

as such, and why did not some one of the apostles confirm 
such a prediction, as they have done those about justifi- 
cation and regeneration ? 

4. Rom. V, 19: "For as by one man's disobedience 
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall 
many be made righteous." {a) The fall and total deprav- 
ity of the human family are acknowledged by all orthodox 
divines. These truths are fully taught in Scripture. That 
"the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately 
wicked," is a fact, alas ! true. Man under the curse is 
represented as " dead in trespasses and sins." (h) All 
the moral restoration that the soul has, from this lost and 
ruined state, wherein the Divine image was forfeited, is 
justification and regeneration — simply the justified rela- 
tion and regenerated state of the soul. No more, in the 
sense of entire sanctification, is promised, according to 
this quotation. No more can be conceived of. It seems 
to all human understanding an absolute impossibihty ; for 
what is justification, in its wide sense, as used by St. 
Paul? It is, (1.) The forensic act of taking away the 
PENALTY due to sin. (2.) The non-imputation of sin 
itself to a believing soul. (3.) It also includes the plen- 
ary gift of the Holy Grhost within that soul. Now, when 
God does not impute sin in the abstract — that is, in any 
degree whatever — can there be any more, any greater just- 
ification than the non-imputation of sin to a soul? For 
if he did, in the least degree, impute sin, there would then 
be an imputation, and hence he could not say with Paul, 
" Would not impute sin." No law stands against such a 
man ; for sin is the violation of law, which law must be, 
in the Divine government, vindicated whenever it is vio- 
lated, or else the violator must be justified. But when 
this is done, there is a complete and fidl non-imputation. 
It looks impossible for either God or man to think of any 
more than what is implied in the 7ion-imputation of sin. 
Suppose more could be conceived of, and let entire sancti- 



Arc. v.] justification AND REGENERATION. 



109 



fication be the corresponding " concomitant" of that more, 
the same as regeneration is the "concomitant" of non- 
imputation, then, forsooth, ?i6>^-imputation, as above indi- 
cated, would be imputation in order to make room for the 
idea of an entire non-imputation having entire sancti- 
fication as its " concomitant." And as to regeneration, 
which in its etymological meaning implies all that can be 
expressed in language concerning a new moral nature, 
more can not be uttered or set forth, by any speaker or 
writer, to declare a complete work of grace in the heart. 
Hence, the meaning of the word just — dcxatoc — in our 
quotation, with its necessary companion, regenerated, 
which analogically is the true concomitant, promises all 
that language can express. (e) The contrast in this 
proof-passage is remarkable. It is twofold. (1.) There 
is a contrast between the disobedience of Adam and the 
obedience of Christ. It is said, " As by one man's diso- 
bedience many were made sinners," etc. All the sin of 
the entire human family, both that in Adam and our act- 
ual sins, was caused and brought about by his disobe- 
dience, whereby man lost all the Divine image, became 
"free from righteousness" — as depraved as sin can make 
the soul. No one can consistently deny the total deprav- 
ity of man. Such a denial would be an acknowledgment 
of it. And under the curse "there is none righteous;" 
" In Adam all died ;" " By nature, [that is, by birth,] 
all are the children of wrath." But in view of these 
truths we may just as reasonably deny total or com- 
plete salvation through Christ as deny total depravity 
and absolute condemnation through the fall of Adam. 
And so infidels would have, no doubt, argued were it not 
that man, as carnal, prefers to talk about heaven rather 
than hell. But a full salvation from all sin, both as to 
time and eternity, is taught: ^'So by the obedience of 
one shall many be made righteous." The word righteous 
here, as elsewhere explained, is just, and is of the same 



110 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

verbal stem and relationship -with the noun justification, 
and with the verb to justify. I think consistency requires 
that it should be translated so, not only in this place, but 
in perhaps every place in the New Testament where it 
occurs so very many times, instead of translating it by 
the word righteous. It is so translated in many places, 
as, "The just shall live by faith," Rom. i, 17; "He 
sendeth rain on the JUST and on the unjust," Matt, v, 45 ; 
" There shall be a resurrection both of the just and of 
the unjust," Acts xxiv, 15. We see, therefore, that a 
just man is one in the justified relation — a man having 
the non-imputation of sin. Our text says, "By the obe- 
dience of one shall many be made just." Observe how 
this language resembles that of Isaiah : " By his knowl- 
edge shall my righteous servant justify many." The 
word mant/ in both cases, and the kindred words pertain- 
ing to justification, are used. Observe, further, that it is 
not said, "By the obedience of one shall many be wholly 
sanctified considered as a more excellent, internal work, 
but the apostle regarded their being made, or constituted 
just, as all things to them through the obedience of Christ. 
(2.) This brings us to notice the second sense of the con- 
trast in the text. The word just is put in wonderful 
contrast with the word sinners. As sure as all the eon- 
sequences of sin through the fall of Adam will imply eter- 
nal condemnation and banishment from God, so sure do 
JUSTIFICATION and regeneration imply all the salvation 
that is to be had through the "obedience" of the man 
Christ Jesus. The contrast in the text proves this. All, 
every part of the curse of Adam, so far as man's salva- 
tion is concerned, is Mlled dead, or perfectly counteracted 
in the obedience of Christ in sufi'ering death for us ; but 
this is only on the condition that we seek justification by 
faith, and then we have it all, as to this life — then we are 
of the " many made just." Nothing more is promised, 
in the covenant, in the meaning of the words employed in 



arq. v.] justification and regeneration. 



Ill 



our text, in the contrast, or in the sense as tangible to the 
human mind. For, as the word sinners, on the one hand, 
means all that is implied in total depravity and its conse- 
quences, so, on the other hand, the word just, or " right- 
eous," if you prefer, means all, as a work done for us 
and in us that is to be had through our all-sufficient Re- 
deemer and Savior at this side of heaven, (d) In like 
manner we observe the incidental contrast in the use of the 
word JUST with the word unjust in the above quotations, 
called in as illustrations. In the one, Christ speaks of 
the Father sending rain upon the just, in contrast with 
the unjust; this may show us that a just man, in the 
estimation of God, is as much as the Scripture incident- 
ally mentions, recognizes, or promises unto those who are 
anxiously inquiring the way of eternal life ; because here 
he shows that the Father is not a partial God — that he is 
no respecter of persons, but merciful to all alike, in send- 
ing rain on the just, his own saved and peculiar people, 
who are as dear to him as children can be to a parent, and 
intensely more so ; and also on their opposite, the unjust, 
who are as base and as sinful as sin can make the soul to 
be. A resurrection is also mentioned of the just and of 
the UNJUST, that they, as such, shall arise, and not as some 
other characters which might be represented by the wholly 
sanctified and the unjust. Observe, dear reader, that there 
is no resurrection promised to men icholly sanctified, as 
such. God, as it respects good men, will raise the just 
only; if you are the friend of the Judge, you will arise 
as a JUST man, and not as one wholly sanctified, consid- 
ering that sanctification as a separate, inward work, addi- 
tional to regeneration. That is, if 'the blessing of justi- 
fication by faith does not bless you unto absolute purity, 
there is, then, no such purity of soul ijromised you. God 
hath not spoken it ; and after the present state of things, 
in the arrangement of Providence, at the time of the gen- 
eral resurrection, the good in contradistinction to the bad 



112 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Pakt I. 



will be the just. " These [the wicked] shall go away into 
everlasting punishment; but the righteous [ouccio:, just] 
into life eternal." By the obedience of one many shall 
be made just." God never promised Abraham that there 
was any other or greater blessing than that which all men 
receive who are justified. If a man is justified, he is 
then "blessed with faithful Abraham." He is then a 
child of God. St. James has left us what may be called 
a promise of much assurance ; that the " efi'ectual fervent 
prayer of a righteous \_dixa{ou, just] man availeth much." 
From this we may learn that " Elias," mentioned in the 
next verse, was the illustration held in the mind of the 
apostle, whom he virtually calls a just man, from the fact 
that he refers to him as a specimen of a man of " effect- 
ual fervent prayer." But the promise of such efficacy is 
to JUST men, and not to such as some might suppose to 
be wholly sanctified. Yet this just Elijah works mira- 
cles, controls all things by his faith, is set forth to us as 
an example of faith, and goes to heaven in a chariot of 
fire, without any intimation of any other blessing than 
the regeneration of the justified. 

5. Gal. iii, 8: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that 
God would justify the heathen through faith, preached 
before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall 
all nations be blessed." What did the Scripture foresee? 
The answer is, "That God would justify the heathen 
through faith." Is it not a wonder that it did not fore- 
see that he would ivhoUy sanctify them also ? Is it not 
astonishing that the Scripture did not foresee all the 
work of grace in the heart, and not merely a part of it? 
If regeneration, as embraced in justification, be a mere 
clearing of the ground at first, and entire sanctification a 
(K)mplete destruction of all the stumps, sprouts, roots, etc., 
is it not strange that the Scripture did not foresee that 
God would make a complete work of it, as well as foresee 
him remove the mere underbrush? If the Scripture fore- 



arg. v.] justification and regeneration. 113 

saw that God would half save the soul through faith, is 
it not a curious thing that it did not foresee that he 
would wholly sanctify and save it also? Is it not most 
exceedingly strange that the Scripture should foresee the 
small, the imperfect work, and not also the great and the 
perfect? If justification is insufficient, as a condition of 
favor with God, for man's eternal salvation, and if entire 
sanctification, as held by some, is absolutely necessary, is 
it not to us a very incomprehensible thing that the Scrip- 
ture should foresee the insufficient, and not see also that 
which is sufficient? Is it not manifest from this that God 
thinks more of the justified than he does of the wliolly 
sanctified, as such, since he foresees and makes mention 
of the former and ivliolly sanctifies the latter with neglect, 
so as neither to promise them any thing in the Abrahamic 
covenant, in the general predictions of the prophets, and 
in the resurrection of the just? But what further did 
the Scripture do when it foresaw that God would justify 
the heathen through faith? It "preached before the 
Gospel." Now, if it preached the Gospel, it is presum- 
able that it preached all the Gospel necessary for the 
salvation of Abraham, at least. But the sermon was 
very short and plain, composed of these seven English 
words, " In thee shall all nations be blessed." This 
Gospel sermon Abraham believed, and he received a 
blessing. That blessing was justification and regenera- 
tion, and no other. For, "And therefore it was imputed 
to him for dty.aioavvri^^, [justieication]." Rom. iv, 22. 
Now, no Greek scholar can object to the word ^ixawaovrf^^ 
dikaiosynen, being here translated justification. For, (a) it 
is agreeably to the context and the sense we give the 
other kindred words. The verb of the same stem or root 
we translate always in the Testament by our verb to 
justify, and the root from whence both these is derived is 
the adjective frequently translated just, (h) The best of 

Biblical critics and scholars give the noun the translation 

10 



114 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



I have given it in the foregoing quotation. The same 
word is found in Rom. iii, 25, 26, in both which places 
Moses Stuart, late Professor of Sacred Literature in the 
Theological Seminary at Andover, Massachusetts, and a 
most eminent hterary man, translated by the word just- 
ification. Such is the meaning given to it by our own 
commentators in various places throughout their writings. 
Mr. Watson says, The apostle often uses the term 
bLv.awGWTi^ righteousness, in a passive sense for justifica- 
tion itself. So in Gal. ii, 21, ' If righteousness [justifica- 
tion] came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.' Gal. 
iii, 21, 'For if there had been a law given which could 
have given life, verily righteousness [^justification] should 
have been by the law.' Rom. ix, 30, ' The Gentiles have 
attained to righteousness, [justification,'] even the right- 
eousness [justification] T\'hich is by faith.' And in Rom. 
X, 4, ' Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to 
every one that believeth;' where, also, we must under- 
stand righteousness to mean justification. Rom. v, 18, 
19, will also show, that with the apostle, Uo make right- 
eous,' and 'to justify,' signify the same thing; for 'justifi- 
cation of life,' in the eighteenth verse, is called in the nine- 
teenth, being 'made righteous.' To be accounted right- 
eous is, then, in the apostle's style, where there has been 
personal guilt, to be justified; and what is accounted or 
imputed to us for righteousness, is accounted or imputed 
to us for our justification."* This justification, then, with 
regeneration is all the inward, spiritual blessing that 
Abraham ever received. If during his lifetime, after- 
ward, he was blessed every day, it was just the same 
thing repeated; namely, the witness of the Spirit daily 
that he was still the friend of God. Abraham had Christ 
then; for he saw Christ's day — he saw it and was glad. 
The sermon preached to him promised that in him all 
nations should be blessed. Now, the phrase " in thee " 

* Theological Institutes, Vol. ii, Part Second, chap, xxiii, p. 240. 



arg. v.] justification and regeneration. 115 



shows that we have the same Savior in the same way 
that Abraham had, as does also the context, that the 
faithful are "blessed with faithful Abraham." And as 
"the blessing of Abraham," as an internal work, was 
plainly regeneration and nothing more, so it positively 
says that this same blessing shall be imputed to us if we 
believe. If the blessings are the same, and Abraham's 
was merely regeneration, there must be a positive denial 
of entire sanctification as an extra blessing, on the ground 
that God never promised such to men. Any more, we 
have seen, is absurd and inconceivable. Shall we be so 
simple as to pretend to expect, or teach, or preach, what 
God hath not promised? Shall we be wise and pious 
above what is written? 

6. Rom. iv, 13 : " For the promise that he should be 
the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his 
seed, through the law, but through the righteousness 
[justification] of faith." {a) In this passage the proji- 
ISE of salvation is referred to as the particular Scrip- 
ture wherein we are to find salvation mentioned for us. 
(h) This promise is to us, the seed of Abraham, as well 
as to him. (c) If the apostle was correct in calling the 
mind of the Jew to the proper condition in this promise 
or covenant, showing him that the manner of receiving 
it was not through law according to its condition, may 
we not with equal propriety call the memory of all men 
to the blessing set forth in the covenant, said to be just- 
ification OF FAITH? It is not entire sanctification, as 
an addition to justification. To think of any other, as 
obtainable by us, is as erroneous a view of the blessing 
itself, as justification by works was an erroneous view 
on the part of the Jew as to the manner of attaining 
unto this blessing. The whole covenant, in every aspect, 
must be considered and taught in the very manner in 
which God designed it to be considered when he gave it. 
And if the Jew sought in vain for the blessing on a 



116 



EBVIEW OF WESLBYAN PEEFECTION. 



[Part I. 



condition of works, not expressed in the covenant, but 
contrary to the condition plainly declared, what can those 
expect who look for a greater blessing not promised or 
mentioned in the covenant, while justification is spoken 
of as a part of it ? If those fail to obtain the Abrahamic 
blessing who are not satisfied with faith only, as the sole 
condition on which man receives that blessing, but must 
connect with the true condition repentance and water- 
baptism, which things are no part of the covenant, re- 
quired of man as essential to obtaining the blessing, shall 
not those who seek for entire sanctification, as more than 
regeneration, not satisfied with what God in the covenant 
has promised on his part to do, absolutely fail to attain 
unto that unmentioned blessing, it being no part of what 
God covenanted to perform ? 

7. Rom. xiv, 17, 18 : " For the kingdom of God is not 
meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in 
the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth 
Christ, is acceptable to God and approved of men." 

The phrase kingdom of God may sometimes be regarded 
as the visible Church upon earth, the Christian dispensa- 
tion as mentioned by Daniel : " In the days of these kings 
shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall not 
be destroyed." Dan. ii, 44. Sometimes it means the 
future abode of the saints : " The unrighteous shall not 
inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. vi, 9. Again, it 
means the kingdom of grace in the heart of the believer. 
In this sense it is used here. It " is not meat and drink, 
but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
Its results show that it is the inward kingdom of the 
heart — " the spiritual kingdom of God or Christ, his reign 
within ; in a word, true Christianity."* 

The kingdom of God is said to consist negatively, not 
in meat and drink, because that some difficulty had arisen 
among the Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity 

Stuart's Commentary, in loco. 



Aeg. v.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND KEGENERATION. 



117 



respecting the eating of meat ; but positively the kingdom 
is righteousness — biy-aioowi)^ justification. Such is the 
word. From which we perceive that the kingdom of God, 
ALL of it, ALL told, consists, in the first place, of justifi- 
cation, nothing more — only peace, joy, and the Holy 
Ghost, which are the results arising from the justified 
relation. For a further illustration of what is stated in 
these words, let us transpose them so as to make "the 
kingdom of God" stand as predicate, thus : "Justification, 
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost are the kingdom of 
God." Now, this is just as true as the manner in which 
St. Paul wrote it is true. The genius of language makes 
it so. But if "justification, peace, and joy in the Holy 
Ghost," as this statement has it, really are the kingdom, 
then the idea of the necessity of entire sanctification im- 
plies that these are not the kingdom, and the statement 
of St. Paul is incorrect ; and if we add another internal 
blessing in order to make the kingdom complete, we then 
have more than the kingdom according to St. Paul. This 
shows that there is an error somewhere. If there is such 
a blessing, it is strangely omitted by the inspired writer ; 
and, from the statement here given, it must be excluded 
from Christian theology as untenable. The less doctrine 
of justification — so considered by some — is faithfully ar- 
gued and defended, being taught, as Peter says, "by all 
the prophets," plainly preached by Christ, and elaborately 
debated and enforced by St. Paul. We may fully con- 
clude, therefore, that if there is any such thing as a work 
additional to regeneration, it is not promised in the Bible, 
as the true revelation setting forth all essential doctrines 
fully. Nor is it enjoyed in the heart of the true believer 
as a part or as the sum of that kingdom which is " peace 
and joy in the Holy Ghost." This conclusion is more- 
over confirmed, since it is also said, " For he that in these 
things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved 
of men." Now, if a man, by the blessing of justification, 



118 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



is acceptable to Grod, Avhat more can God, tho Bible, or our 
rational nature require ? Such is the kingdom of God. 
He who stands in it abides simply in the justified relation 
and the regenerated state ; and, as the original word means, 
he is eudpsffTuc, lu ell-pleasing to God, and men themselves 
can not find fault, for such a one is approved in the sight 
of men. Although we may call ourselves unprofitable 
servants in this, yet God does not demand any more. 
Therefore, the conclusion is, that God never promised us 
what is not in the kingdom, what is not m the covenant, 
what is not essential to making us iv ell- pleasing to himself, 
and what is not needed to approve us to men. 



ARGUMENT VI. 

Regeneration, as implied in jttstification, is the 
only blessina as an inward work that the bible 
teaches, as seen by the general, incidental teaching 
contained therein. 

This and the former argument can not be said to be 
absolutely necessary to establish our views upon the 
whole, if what is said in the first four arguments is true. 
Nevertheless, what we have said in our fifth may serve to 
confirm the truth still more, and so may the points to be 
presented in this one. Truth is worthy of being well told. 
The more light made to shine on any doctrine of the Bible 
the better. Investigation never hurts truth. One may 
turn it over and examine it carefully on every side, and 
after the most profound scrutiny it remains truth^ still un- 
tarnished and inviolable. A glance at a few apparently- 
incidental expressions in Scripture may help to establish 
further the truth of the position herein taken, inasmuch 
as such expressions, to all human appearance, seem to 
have been made in the most incidental manner. 



Arg. VI.] JUSTIFICATION AND EEGENERATION. 119 



Always using regeneration, with Mr. Watson, as a 
^'concomitant" of justification, we observe: 

1. Regeneration is incidentally mentioned, by preemi- 
nence, as God's justification in contradistinction to any 
other mode of saving man. 

Rom. iii, 21, 22 : " Now the justification of God with- 
out the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and 
the prophets; even the justification of God which is 
BY faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them 
that believe." {a) Here is apparently an incidental allu- 
sion to the doctrine of regeneration as being preeminently 
the justification of God — the only revealed way by 
Avhich he saves man. It is, by a peculiar distinction, 
spoken of as His, as if to say he had no other way to save 
men apart from or besides what is included in this. (5) It 
is further incidentally said to be by faith of Jesus 
Christ. It is admitted that no accountable man of Ad- 
am's posterity is saved except by faith. Such was the 
salvation of the patriarchs, and in the same manner has 
every other man, wholly delivered from sin and its conse- 
quences, been saved ever since the first promise of salva- 
tion was given to our fallen race. The justification of the 
patriarchs was as certainly by faith of Jesus Christ as is 
our own. Abel, the protomartyr, " ofi'ered unto God a 
more excellent sacrifice,'-' " by faith." (c) The peculiar 
character of this justification of God, in such a preem- 
inent sense, is seen also in the fact that it is "witnessed 
by the law and the prophets." Including the former re- 
mark, in which it appears that this was God's method of 
saving man in the earliest ages of the patriarchs, so we 
find it to be his method — pecidiarly God's own flan of sav- 
ing man under the law, that is, in the Levitical dispensa- 
tion. It was also witnessed by " the prophets," so that 
from the Fall up to the beginning of the Christian age, 
according to St. Paul, the justification of God, further 
defined to be that which is of faith of Jesus Christ, 



120 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



was the ONLY mode of God's salvation, and the only re- 
vealed way whereby man was saved, {d) The apostle 
shows, also, that this is still God's plan of saving men; 
for, he says it is "upon all them that believe." He 
urges it upon both Jew and Gentile as the only remedy ; 
saying, "For there is no difference; for all have sinned 
and come short of the glory of God." {e) Here is, there- 
fore, the one religion of Divine revelation, called God's 
justification; not his entire sanctification, nor even 
his sanctification without the word entire; but it is, and 
includes all the work of Divine grace to man, so far as 
it relates to the pardon of sin and the regeneration or 
perfect purification of the soul. We have just seen that 
the patriarchs, priests, and prophets had this and no 
other, as an inward work, and WE have the same and in the 
same sense. There is no other. The ancient Church of 
God and the present one never changed in this essential 
feature. In every age the whole matter is told in the one 
phrase — justification of God. He that looks for more 
than this, looks for what is not revealed; and he that 
looks for less, can not be saved. 

2. Regeneration is all the blessing that is incidentally 
mentioned, as that which God imputes to man in answer 
to faith, {a) The whole system of revealed religion, so 
far as it relates to the restoration of the soul from sin, 
has just now been shown to be justification by faith. 
Granting that there is such a subsequent work in the soul 
as "entire sanctification," which its own advocates hold 
to be by faith, such must be anomalous ; for God never 
IMPUTES any thing to the believer but simply justifica- 
tion with its " concomitant." But entire sanctification is 
not absolutely regarded as a concomitant; for, first, it is 
supposed that a soul may receive this great blessing at the 
time of justification, but the doctrine holds that in the 
vast majority of cases it is not much, if at all, before 
death. Secondly, it is regarded as a much more complete 



Arg. VI.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



121 



work than regeneration. Since it is not attained unto 
generally^ the theory of it being granted, at the time of 
justification, and since in every dispensation man is saved 
through the justification of God, apart from every other 
plan, there seems to be incidentally a want of some reve- 
lation on the question, by which we should see a greater 
internal work of grace than that experienced by the patri- 
archs, the prophets, and the apostles. If God does act- 
ually impute justification for faith, if regeneration is 
acknowledged to accompany justification, and if entire 
sanctification does not so accompany it, those who hold 
to the latter, we think, should tell us if a man can be 
more than just with God, which seems really to be im- 
plied or presupposed in the idea of a second blessing 
claimed in the same covenant, and by the same condition 
of faith in that covenant. 

3. Regeneration is incidentally represented in Scrip- 
ture as having ministers. Noah was a preacher of " right- 
eousness;" that is, JUSTIFICATION. The law and the 
prophets, which witnessed " this same justification, are 
implied as being its ministers. The ministers of Satan 
are also represented as transforming themselves " as min- 
isters of JUSTIFICATION." Satan assumes the worship and 
honor due to God, and seems to have claimed all that is 
good, but it would seem, from Scripture, as if he had for- 
gotten to send forth his servants transformed into the 
ministers of entire sanctification. This was a degree of 
moral purity so much above Satan's conceptions of the 
Divine will, that he never thought of counterfeiting a 
minister to preach it, so far as it is revealed to us. In- 
asmuch as he is not omniscient, but dependent on Divine 
revelation, it is likely that a type of the idea Avas want- 
ing. His ministers are transformed into those of justi- 
fication, and the presumption is, that if the doctrine had 
existed in the days of the apostles, they would have told 

11 



122 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



US that either God or Satan, or both, had ministers of it, 
but incidentally it seems to be otherwise. 

4. Regeneration has fruits ascribed to it, but we never 
find them ascribed to sanctification. Indeed, as this work 
shall hereafter show, we find sanctification to be the fruit 
itself. " Being filled with the fruits of righteousness " — 
JUSTIFICATION — ^is the language of Paul to the Philip- 
pians; and may Grod "increase the fruits of your right- 
eousness " — JUSTIFICATION — are his words to the Corinth- 
ians. Add to this, that while we believe every one justified 
to be also regenerated, and that such has the "Spirit of 
adoption," the fruit of which is " love, joy, peace, long- 
sulFering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temper- 
ance," etc., and we have all the good fruits of Christianity 
thus taught us as proceeding from regeneration. None 
seem to be left for sanctification. Why did not the apos- 
tle, by some incidental remarks, speak of the fruits of 
sanctification ? If the Scripture abundantly teaches that 
all the fruits of the true Christian, consisting in the exact 
keeping and Scriptural fulfillment of the moral law, are 
simply the fruits of the justified relation, and with power 
and authority enforces such obedience on all who are 
justified, are we not to conclude, from the casual and 
positive silence of the Scriptures, as to the "wholly sanc- 
tified" man's fruits, that he is, therefore, wholly exempt 
from bearing them ? Reader, did you never observe that 
neither the fruits of sanctification, nor of entire sanctifi- 
cation, are found in the Bible ? Always they are the 
fruits of the regenerated state, as already proved. (1.) 

By the name — y.ap-a>-^ oixaiuao'^r^q^ FRUITS OF JUSTIFICA- 
TION. Phil, i, 11. (2.) By deduction from theological 
ground, Avhich entire sanctificationists themselves allow ; 
namely, that the Christian's fruits are " the fruit of the 
Spirit;" which Spii'it every regenerated man has. Gala- 
tians V, 22. 

5. Man, in his absolute deliverance from sin, that is, in 



Arc. VI.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



123 



the regenerated state, is incidentally represented as serving 
JUSTIFICATION, and not as serving entire sanctification. 
This is the boundary of his action — the measure of his 
Christian duty and obligation. St. Paul says. Having 
been freed from sin, ye became devoted to df/.aioawrj^ justi- 
fication. Rom. vi, 18. Why did not the apostle tell 
the Romans that, having been made free from sin, they 
had now to serve, and be devoted to, entire sanctifica- 
tion ? Reader, please carefully observe the facts here 
incidentally taught, and account for the apostle's neglect 
to mention that there was a higher degree of grace to 
which they should become devoted. And, further, that in 
the next verse, the members of their body, which they 
formerly employed in the service of sin, are now required 
to be rendered subservient to justification. Therefore, 
regeneration is the only internal work of grace here inci- 
dentally taught. 

6.. The Scripture casually teaches that the true Chris- 
tian, in case of persecution, is persecuted for the sake of 
justification, not for the sake of entire sanctification. 
This, as in all other instances, is omitted. " If ye suffer 
for righteousness' sake, happy are ye." 1 Peter iii, 14. 
That is, for the sake of justification. The Christian 
suffers for this; and as such, he can suffer for nothing 
else, because this is the true and only experimental grace 
of God in the soul. It was so held in the mind of the 
apostle, as including the sum of all purity, against which 
the malice of our spiritual foes should be directed. Our 
Lord used the same word justification, when he said, 
" Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' 
sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." We observe 
from these passages, that the Christian is persecuted on 
account of his religion, his profession, his Christianity; 
but take notice, the name of the thing, that is, the word 
employed in Scripture to set forth the idea, is justifica- 
tion, and not sanctification. One would think from this 



124 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOX. [Part I. 



that the "wholly sanctified" — granting that there are 
such, in the common use of this term — are never per- 
secuted. Their Master was, and " the servant is not 
above his Lord." But how do the "wholly sanctified" 
seem to escape? Our Lord's word, as quoted, further 
says of those persecuted for the sake of justification, 
" Theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Does not this look 
as if our Savior promised to justified men, who should 
stem the tide of persecution till death, that he would save 
them in the kingdom of heaven ? The word seems to 
imply no more work of grace than what is said to be in 
the justified relation ; and the promise, we think, can not 
imply less than a promise of eternal life. We do persist 
that such passages, duly considered, must have weight in 
this argument. 

7. Regeneration is fortuitously spoken of as the theme 
of the public ministrations of God's ministers. David 
says, "I have preached righteousness in the great con- 
gregation." Psa. xl, 9. This was justification that 
David preached, as two facts will show, (a) St. Paul — 
Romans, chap, iv — plainly shows that the teaching of 
David was justification and regeneration, in the very sense 
in which he himself taught it. (h) The Septuagint so 
understood it; for it has used diy.aioabvr^^j^ justification, 
the same word as used by St. Paul. Noah preached the 
same thing. God preached it to Abraham, as the impli- 
cation is, by using the same word, not to mention St. 
Paul's full exposition of the Gospel as preached to the 
patriarch. It is included in the " ministration of right- 
eousness," or justification, mentioned 2 Cor. iii, 9. 
Why is not the doctrine of sanctification, in the sense 
in which men have held it, spoken of in these, and in 
similar cases, a s if incidentally? 

8. Regeneration seems to be casually used as the theme 
of exultation among God's people. Job says, "My 
righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go ; my heart 



Aeo. VI.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



125 



shall not reproach me so long as I live." Job xx\u, 6. 
(a) Job was a perfect man. Observe this. Since per- 
fection and entire sanctification are regarded as "iden- 
tical/' why did he not say, "My entire sanctification I 
hold fast?" (b) The patriarch meant justification, as 
described in the passage above quoted from Psalms, and 
not a second blessing, as a separate work of the heart. 
This, he says, he will " hold fast." That is, he will live 
in the justified relation and regetwrated state — without any 
additional blessing — all his life, {c) Compare St. Paul, 
"The just [(?£xafog] shall live by faith." Rom. i, 17. 
Here observe, (1.) The word "just" means one justified^ 
and so regenerated. (2.) He is called '^just,^^ in a general 
sense, to indicate all God's people as opposed to the chil- 
dren of the wicked one, just as we, in common, use the 
phrase, "the wise," for all wise men as opposed to the 
foolish. (3.) That as such, that is, as just and regen- 
erated, they are to continue to live, drawing their life 
daily and hourly from God "by faith." Paul's meaning 
is, that a man's Christian life is always that of the justi- 
fied and regenerated, and that he lives in this life of grace 
as long as the soul lives in the body, ^'hy faiths Hence, 
if the apostle should declare his integrity to God, he 
could adopt the words of Job exactly, and say, "My 
righteousness [justification] I hold fast." The reader 
will find that this idea just agrees with what we call the 
perpetuity " of regeneration in our conclusion, {d) Job 
further says, "My heart shall not reproach me so long 
as I live." Can entire sanctification do any more than 
keep the heart from reproach during one's life ? Yet 
this is a result of justification. David says, "My 
tongue also shall talk of thy righteousness." Psa. Ixxi, 
24. The Septuagint reads, " 'II yXwffad p.uu . . . ixeXerriffsi 
zTjv dtxaio(Tou7)v (TOO " — My tongue shall practice speaking 
thy justification. The Septuagint uses the same word 
where Isaiah says, " 0, that thou hadst hearkened to my 



126 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Pakt I. 



commandments ! Then had thy peace been as a river, and 
thy [justification] as the waves of the sea." Isa. xlviii, 
18. "The Lord hath recompensed me according to my 
[justification]." 2 Sam. xxii, 25. 

Such seems to be the use of the word in question, in 
an incidental manner, to express the sole relation of a 
good man to God. That it means justification, as the 
abstract idea of the verb to justify^ which we use to ex- 
press the act of pardon, will appear from facts in the 
case, (a) Our quotations show that the ancient people 
of God rejoiced daily in the Divine favor, and that they 
used justification to indicate that favor ; and in their 
praises to God they called it, by preeminence, thy justi- 
fication, as St. Paul calls it in his argument, the justi- 
fication OF God. Rom. iii, 22. (h) The apostle in this 
place is speaking, by direct and able argument, about what 
we all call ^'justification hy faithJ' (c) He uses the same 
Greek word as is used in the Septuagint, as may be seen 
from the above quotations, (d) All those passages quoted 
from the Old Testament have, in the Hebrew, the same 
word ; the translators rendered it " righteousness." It is 
found in the plain passage where Abraham had "right- 
eousness," that is, JUSTIFICATION, imputed to him. This 
word is Hj^ny — (sedhaJcah, justification — derived from the 
verbal root piv — tsadhak, to justify. These are facts 
that ought to be considered; for, in every dispensation 
of the Christian religion it has been called, apparently 
without design, at least so far as it concerns our argu- 
ment, by the same name, to indicate the totality of God's 
holy religion, so far as it relates to Christian experience 
on earth. 

9. But, finally, the justified relation is incidentally 

spoken of as the highest state of grace from ivhich one 
turns ivhen he backslides. Since man may fall from the 
highest degree of moral purity conceivable, as he did in 
Eden, and as men and angels have done, the presumption 



Aug. VI.] JUSTIFICATION AN^D REGENEKATION. 



127 



is, that there is no other state of blessedness for the soul 
while on earth. "When a righteous man turneth away 
from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity," etc. ; 

Septuagint, ^Ev r<p anoffrpiipai rov dUaw^ ix r^q 8iy.aco<Tu\'rjq 

auTod, In the turning away of the just [man] from Ms 
justification; Hebrew, pn^o-iK^3 — b'shuhh tsaddih 

mitstsidhJcatho — In the turning away of a just [man] 
from his justification, etc. Ezek. xviii, 26. St. Pe- 
ter, speaking of persons who had, or may have "escaped 
the pollutions of the Avorld through the knowledge of the 
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," in case such should again 
be entangled and overcome by the world, says, "It had 
been better for them not to have known the way of 
duawcTovTiq^ [justification,] than, after they had known it, 
to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." 
2 Pet. ii, 21. {a) The state of grace in w^hich these 
stood, previous to their backsliding, is shown from this 
passage itself to have been the greatest conceivable on 
earth ; for it consisted in " escaping the pollutions of the 
world'^ — a knowledge of Christ by experience — an obedi- 
ence in full of the " holy commandments " which had been 
delivered to them. Our rational nature teaches us that 
this "holy commandment" was the whole of God's re- 
vealed will to them. So Dr. Adam Clarke says, " The 
WHOLE religion of Christ is contained in this one com- 
mandment, ' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with 
all thy strength; and thy neighbor as thyself.' He who 
obeys this great commandment, and this by the grace of 
Christ is possible to every man, is saved from sinning 
either against his God or against his neighbor. Nothing 
less than this does the religion of Christ require." This 
is truly a very sensible and plain comment on this pas- 
sage, and the unequivocal meaning is, that the back- 
sliders, here mentioned, turned from " the whole religion 
of Christ,'' as Dr. Clarke says. But (5) take notice that 



128 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



this ''whole religion of Christ'' is called the ''way of 
justification" in the text; therefore, logically, the 
JUSTIFIED soul has ''the whole religion of Christ,'" and 
entire sanctification, both by incidental expression and by 
unsophisticated reason, does not appear. This, also, is 
so, an eminent entire sanctificationist himself being made 
judge in the case. The passage above quoted from Eze- 
kiel, our translations being allowed, speaks for itself. Now, 
the fact that these incidental expressions, and very many 
more that might be adduced, have, speaking after the 
manner of men, been written apparently without design, 
so far as the sentiment herein is concerned, is what ap- 
pears to us to be of no inconsiderable weight in this 
argument. 

The main point to be considered, as to an accurate 
conclusion on this whole argument, is simply this : Notice, 
that wherever, throughout the whole Bible, the inspired 
writers have occasion to name that holy religion which 
God has revealed to man, or to 7iame a man by some 
general term which would indicate that he was the pos- 
sessor of that religion, in the former instance the word 
JUSTIFICATION is used, and in the latter they employ the 
term just. And since regeneration is a concomitant of 
these, there can be no other blessing additional to the 
soul. And since neither the possessor nor the thing pos- 
sessed has, in one single instance, been named by such 
terms as would sufficiently suit that theory of extraordi- 
ary internal purity, we conclude that, as there are in the 
physical system " two Innominata or nameless bones," so 
called from their own occult characteristics and relations, 
so there must be two Irmominata — -/.ara (pbaiv Oewpimv — ^in 
the theological system of some of our brethren, which are 

the WHOLLY SANCTIFIED and ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. 



Arg. VII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



129 



ARGUMENT VII. 

The REGENERATION OF THE JUSTIFIED IS ALL THE 
BLESSING, AS AN INWARD WORK OF THE SOUL, THAT THE 
ATONEMENT CONTEMPLATED. 

If the arguments already advanced ari) correct, it might 
very reasonably be expected that this proposition would 
be implied. A few Scripture proofs of this proposition 
will here suffice. 

1. John iii, 14, 15: "So must the Son of man be lifted 
up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
but have eternal life." (a) The necessity of the atone- 
ment is here clearly taught. On this there is among 
orthodox Christians no dispute, (h) The final cause of 
our redemption is, according to this passage, to save believ- 
ers ill Christ, (c) Several properties in common show, 
that the salvation taught in this text and that justification 
and regeneration which Abraham received are the same. 
(1.) Both the blessing of Abraham and this, which is 
procured by the death of Christ for " whosoever believeth 
in him," are through faith, man's part in the covenant. 
(2.) Both are through Christ, God's part — his free gift in 
the covenant. The promise of a blessing to Abraham 
was "in thy seed," whom we hail as the Christ of the 
present dispensation — the " Son of man " who was lifted 
up for our redemption. (3.) The promise made to Abra- 
ham implied that Christ should die a sacrificial death, 
although it did not in so many words positively express 
it ; for, before the time of Abraham, as well as in his 
day, men offered sacrifice to God, which was typical of 
Christ who should be our Sacrifice, (d) Since these sev- 
eral points make the final cause for which Christ died for 
us, the same as for all other nations and ages before us, 
and since the blessing of Ab^^aham was regeneration, it 



130 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



follows that the sacrificial death of Christ did not con- 
template any greater blessing for us. 

2. Rom. iii, 25: "Whom [Christ] God hath set forth 
as a propitiatory sacrifice, through faith in his blood" — 

for a manifestation of his just- 
ification, {a) This passage teaches that Christ is the 
sacrifice for sin. That God set him forth for this very 
purpose ; namely, as our " Lamb " who should take away 
the sin of the world, (h) The final end or cause which 
God had in view was, for a manifestation of his justifi- 
cation. It seems as if God took delight in setting forth 
Christ as a propitiation for the sins of mankind, in order 
that all men and angels might see that he was just and 
the Justifier of him who should believe in Jesus, and that 
he might make a manifestation of his justification in 
the salvation of all who believe. Now, if Christ was set 
forth for a manifestation of justification, and that said to be 
" through FAITH in his blood," we may observe, (1.) That 
the justification spoken of is the pardon of sin, because 
it is " through faith." (2.) That this justification is not 
entire sanctificatioyi, as a subsequent work. Since, there- 
fore, regeneration is the blessing of the justified, and not 
something greater and additional thereto, we may con- 
clude, according to this passage, that such was not con- 
templated in making the atonement. That is, the Divine 
mind did not consider it, but left it wholly out of the 
account, being no part, whatever, of the final cause for 
which Christ died. 

3. 2 Cor. V, 21 : "For he hath made him to be sin for 
us, who knew no sin ; that we might be made the right- 
eousness of God in him." (a) This passage teaches that 
God made Christ, the one not having known sin, a siyi- 
ofi"ering for us. (5) The final cause of this act of God is 
also mentioned ; namely, tliat ive might become the justifi- 
cation of God. This phrase means our justification by 
faith in the sense of pardon. Dr. Robinson, in para- 



Arg. VII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



131 



phrase on the word duawaw-q^ justification, in this place, 
says, " The embodiment and manifestation of this right- 
eousness." Greenfield says that in this phrase it is put 
for " 6 dr/.aiojOs]q, one Avho is forgiven or justified." This 
seems to be the meaning, and if we change the singular 
in Greenfield's words for the plural, so as to suit the 
passage, and translate accordingly, we shall have, That 
we might become those who are justified of God. This ^ 
seems to be a sense to which there can be no reasonable 
objection ; and if so, does it teach that entire sanctifica- 
tion, as this doctrine is understood, is any part of the 
final cause of man's redemption? No such doctrine 
seems to be implied as being contemplated in the atone- 
ment. Our justification was the thing in the Divine in- 
tention when the atonement was made ; and since regen- 
eration is always connected with it, as an inward work, 
we may conclude that it was all the work of grace so 
contemplated. 

4. Gal. ii, 21 : "I do not frustrate the grace of God : 
for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead 
in vain." (a) The death of Christ, mentioned in this 
text, is represented as the procuring cause of our justifi- 
cation, (h) Our regeneration, as implied, is spoken of as 
if it was the whole of the benefit of the atonement. It 
seems as if there can be no implication of such a doctrine 
as entire sanctification. Justification is mentioned as 
being through the death of Christ, and is spoken of in 
such a full, general way as to leave the impression on 
our mind that its blessing is all that the death of our 
Lord had in view. 

5. Gal. iii, 13, 14 : Christ hath redeemed us from the 
curse of the law, being made a curse for us : . . . that 
the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles 
through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise 
of the Spirit through faith." (ct) The first thing spoken 
of in this passage is, that Christ has redeemed us. The 



132 KEYIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

doctrine of redemption through his suffering upon the 
cross is plainly set forth, (b) The final cause is of a 
twofold character. (1.) "That the blessing of Abraham 
might come on the Gentiles." Kow, St. Paul, as well as 
Moses, says that the blessing of Abraham was that which 
is included in justification. They both say that justifica- 
tion was imputed to him, and all admit that regeneration 
is implied therein. This constituted the "blessing of 
Abraham." (2.) The promise of the Spirit is also a 
final cause of the redemption here revealed. But this is 
given in the moment of our justification. It may be 
called a " concomitant " of our justification, or it may be 
regarded as synonymous with the " blessing of Abra- 
ham." Let it be fully understood that the blessing of 
Abraham is the only blessing, as a work of grace in the 
heart, that man receives while on this earth; and if this 
means what is called entire sanctification, then those who 
assert it, and teach it, and profess it, are bound by the 
laws of debate to prove that such a second blessing is a 
part or is the sum of the "blessing of Abraham." The 
onus j^Tohandi is with them. But St. Paul, when teaching 
justification designedly, in the fourth chapter of Romans, 
shows plainly that the Abrahamic blessing is to be im- 
puted unto us the same as it was to him, and in that 
chapter he calls it justification; and all Christians gen- 
erally so understand him as teaching regeneration, and 
not a second work in the soul, (c) Now, that regenera- 
tion, in contradistinction to any greater work, is the thing 
meant by the "blessing of Abraham," will appear from 
St. Paul's words. For, while describing the blessedness 
of justification, in Bom. iv, 1-15, he quotes David to 
show that there is a "blessedness." He actually uses 
the very term blessedness, which is adapted to our argu- 
ment, being the exact word in question, and then goes on 
to show that Abraham received it before cuxumcision, 
thereby teaching that the blessedness which he was speak- 



Arg. VIL] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 133 

ing of was that of the regenerated state, of which cir- 
cumcision was a sign. This, then, fixes the sense of the 
phrase, "-blessing of Abraham." This is what Christ died 
to confer upon the Gentiles, according to the text in hand ; 
nothing more as a work in the heart. Simply this. Christ's 
sacrificial death contemplated nothing further as a final 
end of moral purifying. Is it not strange that there is 
no mention of Christ dying for the ultimate purpose of 
securing what is called our entire sanctification ? 

6. 1 Peter ii, 24 : " Who his own self bare our sins in 
his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, 
should live unto righteousness " — justification, (a) This 
passage teaches that Christ redeemed us by his sacrificial 
death upon the tree, (b) The final cause is mentioned. 
It is introduced by the final conjunction thaty or in order 
that we should live unto justification. Now, why is it 
that all these six passages, and more that might be 
quoted, represent justification as having some relation 
to man as a final end or cause of the atonement, while 
there is not one word about entire sanctity, as such, in 
the final purpose of our redemption? We leave the 
careful reader to observe that justification is a final cause 
of the atonement of Christ, and that the so-called entire 
sanctification is not. And as it has been before argued, 
that the latter is no part of the Abrahamic covenant, the 
same idea is further proved by this fact, that it was never 
a part of God's design in the gift of his Son as a Re- 
deemer. Finally, the gift of Christ, as our oblation on 
the cross, never could have contemplated an impossibility ; 
for, so far as it related to the removing of sin, it had in 
view our regeneration, which Mr. Watson in part defines : 
"The recovery of the moral image of God upon the 
heart." Now, more than the image for it to have con- 
templated, is to human conceptions inconceivable, and 
therefore, as a theory of faith and practice, absolutely 
impossible. 



134 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



ARGUMENT VIII. 

ReGENERATIOX IS A SUFFICIENT PREPARATION OF SOUL 
FOR man's ETERNAL SALVATION, INDEPENDENT OF WHAT IS 

CALLED ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. TMs may be argued, 

1. From the unintentional writings of entire sanctifica- 
tionists themselves. Dr. Peck says, " It would be equally 
foreign, from the views both of St. Paul and Mr. Wesley, 
to speak of those who are not sanctified ivholly as in a 
state of damning sin. For they are justified and born 
anew, and consequently adopted into God's family. And 
though their sanctification may not be complete, they 
have the promise of eternal life, and of course have the 
pledge of complete sanctification, if they should be cut 
off by death in that state. It is most absm'd to suppose 
that a justified soul can be lost, without having forfeited 
his justification by backsliding."* 

It is truly very strange that any one should talk or 
think about the absolute necessity of enth'e sanctification 
as a prerequisite to eternal life in heaven, and at the 
same time adhere to such a sentiment as that expressed 
in the above quotation. Mr. Wesley says, in his note on 
St. John's Gospel, iii, 3, ''In this solemn discourse our 
Lord shows that no external profession, no ceremonial 
ordinances or privileges of bu'th, could entitle any to the 
blessings of the Messiah's kingdom; that an entire 
CHANGE OF HEART as Well as of life was necessary for 
that purpose." And his note on the expression. Ye must 
he horn again, is this, "To be born again is to be in- 
wardly changed from all sinfulness to all holiness." 
Here it is to observed, (a) That Mr. Wesley intimates as 
if he understood Christ to teach Nicodemus all his duty, 
so far as it relates to a full and clear declaration of the 

* Christian Perfection, Abridged Edition, p. 31. 



Arc. VIII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



135 



way of salvation, (b) Mr. Wesley either understood re- 
generation, as taught to Nicodemus, to be all that God 
requires of any man as a fitness for heaven, or else, in 
writing his notes on the passage, he very carelessly 
abused the English language. For, can any writer on 
the theory of entire sanctity use a stronger and more 
expressive term than AN entire change of heart, and 
that, too, where he is evidently speaking merely of the 
new birth, as every one understands the passage to be 
concerning this blessing only? Does the word entire, 
when applied to a change of heart, mean any less than 
when applied to sanctification, or, in other words, does 
entire sanctification, as he held it, mean any more than 
''an entire change of heart Does it mean any more 
than ""to he inwardly changed from all sinfulness to all 
holiness Are not such incidental, strong expressions 
about regeneration equal to virtually saying that it is 
sufficient for eternal salvation? As to Dr. Adam Clarke, 
mention has akeady been made of his comment on Rom. 
vi, 7, where he blends justification and what he calls 
entire sanctification together, thereby making them one 
and the same ; and since he regards them in that manner, 
and the latter as necessary and sufficient, the former is 
sufficient also. As to Rev. Richard Watson, it has been 
shown that his definition of regeneration is the same in 
substance as that given of sanctification, as one may see 
in his Theological Dictionary. Now, since he can not 
distinguish the one from the other, and since he regards 
the latter as sufficient for our salvation, of course we 
must hold the same of the former also, unless it can be 
shown that there is substantially a difference in his defin- 
itions of the two doctrines, which does not appear. The 
resemblance, as to theology, is that of actual identity; 
the inward work in both cases, as already mentioned, 
being the restoration of the "image" of God, and the 
fruit of this inward work consisting, in each definition, in 



136 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

keeping the moral law. Besides these particular places, 
mentioned in the writings of these authors respectively, 
to show that they seem to have incidentally represented 
the new birth as adequate to final salvation, it may be 
observed that if they have any where in the Bible written 
on any doctrine in such a manner as to cause us to be- 
lieve that they understood the Scriptures to teach an 
inward grace necessary and sufficient for eternal safety, 
such a grace, on strict examination, if an imvard work, 
will always be found to be nothing else than regeneration, 
unless those who think otherwise can find a covenant of 
grace apart from the Abrahamic in which some greater 
blessing is taught ; but as the matter is, while faith is the 
term, and it through Christ, it is regeneration. 

2. The sufficiency of the birth of the Spirit may be 
further argued from Scripture. 

John i, 12, 13: "As many as received him, to them 
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them 
that believe on his name; which were born, not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
of God." A few observations are necessary on this pas- 
sage. (1.) There are four expressions used in desig- 
nating the true people of God. First, the receivers of 
Christ ; second, those who received power to become the 
sons of God; third, ''them that heUeve in his name;"' 
fourth, those that were horn of God. These all mean 
the same persons. (2.) These four expressions are all 
applicable to those who are justified; for such have re- 
ceived Christ as Abraham did when he saw Christ's day and 
was " glad." They have also power given them to become 
the sons of God; for they have received the Spirit of 
adoption, as St. Paul teaches, being children, heirs of 
God, the seed of Abraham, and in the covenant. The 
justified are also believers on the name of Christ, because 
faith is the sole condition of their justification, as taught 
in the covenant. Finally, the justified are born of God. 



Arg. VIII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 137 



(3.) It is plain that St. John is here speaking of God's 
people, in the true Bible sense, as seen from two reasons. 
(a) He is speaking of those who truly embraced the Gos- 
pel in all its saving efficacy, in contradistinction to those 
who did not. (b) The four expressions in the text, men- 
tioned in the first observation, mean as much as any ad- 
vocate of total sanctity can conceive of, however sanguine 
he may be for the truth of his theory; for, can any one 
do more for his ultimate admission into glory than receive 
Christ? than become a son of God? than believe in his 
name ? than be born of God ? (4.) The conclusion on this 
passage, therefore, stands thus : St. John spoke of Chris- 
tians in the strongest conceivable sense of the term. These 
have four phrases applied to them, all of which designate 
them as merely justified and regenerated persons ; there- 
fore, regeneration is enough for our eternal salvation, be- 
ing the only conceivable state of grace for a soul, so far 
as it is revealed to us. 

John iii, 3, etc. : " Except a man be born again, he 
can not see the kingdom of God." (a) This conversation 
of our Lord with Nicodemus is acknowledged by all to be 
a proof-passage of the doctrine of regeneration. It is 
quoted by Mr. Watson as such in his Theological Dic- 
tionary, Article Regeneration. It is quoted likewise in 
Barr's Bible Index, and in our Catechism. To the best 
of our knowledge it is not held in proof of entire sancti- 
fication. (b) The passage teaches, from the nature of the 
whole conversation of our Lord on the occasion, that a 
man born of the Spirit should see the kingdom of God; 
and, as stated in verse 8, should "enter into" it. (c) 
The phrase, ''kingdom of God," in this discourse, most 
likely means, as Dr. Robinson says, the kingdom "in the 
internal spiritual sense." This, as our Lord here preached 
it, is a sufficient preparation of heart to meet all the de- 
mands of the Gospel, and to secure a mansion in eternal 
glory. The new birth, or the vital love of God in the 



138 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Pakt I. 



heart unto the restoration of the Divine image, which is 
the same thing, is all that any sanctificationist can con- 
ceive of. All that is taught in this passage, but not less 
than this, {d) This is argued by these two weighty con- 
siderations : (1.) Christ now recognizes him who is born 
of God as IN the kingdom of his " dear Son," beyond 
which more can not be claimed. (2.) The second consid- 
eration is, that he, as one born of God, and in full favor 
with him, may die in this regenerated state ; and the ques- 
tion is, what will become of him ? Verily, he will be 
either eternally saved or lost. One or the other of these 
issues we all admit in common. If he is saved, then the 
argument in hand is gained. Regeneration is sufficient. 
The argument then turns on the other issue, and we say 
he is lost. 

But the objector will not agree to this ; he, in the lan- 
guage of Dr. Peck, says, ''It is most absurd to suppose 
that a justified soul can be lost, without having forfeited 
his justification by backsliding." The advocates of the 
doctrine in question have not the conscience to say that 
a regenerated man dying will be lost; and since this is 
the case, how can they hold that entire sanctification, as 
a second work of the soul, is absolutely necessary? 
Reason actually demands that they come out openly, and 
aver the one or the other ; that is, that the second ad- 
ditional and distinct work r)mst take place in the soul, or 
that soul must be condemned, even in his regeneration. 
There is an evident evasion, however, of these fearful 
alternatives, in order to make out a theory. This is done 
by taking the position that, in case a regenerated soul 
enter into eternity before being completely sanctified, 
however suddenly and unexpectedly, such a soul God 
wholly sanctifies and takes to himself. To this last re- 
sort there are several objections. 

{a) It begs the whole question at last ; for the soul 
only partially cleansed from sin, according to the theory, 



Aeg. VIII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



139 



enters the jaws of death ; God saves it because it is parihj 
cleansed from sin tvith the help of his own j^rerogative. 
Now, if what purifying the soul received in regeneration, 
together with the Divine prerogative, saves it, then the 
question is given up ; for that spirit has reached the eter- 
nal goal, and so regeneration has proved its sufficiency ; 
for it is granted that that spirit could not have been saved 
without it, although supposed to be but a partial bless- 
ing. This is the legitimate result of such a position as 
has been held to concerning Christian perfection. 

(h) The objection, moreover, assumes a feature still 
worse, and, if pressed, fairly presents dangerous conse- 
quences; for, if God in the instant of death can accept 
a soul under the influences of sin in a degree, through a 
peculiar mercy, at the expense of justice, and the actual 
overlooking of its neglect to exercise the faith of full sal- 
vation, then, why can he not save all men on the same 
principle, of winking at all their sins as well as at a part 
of them ? If God can pass by a partial neglect of duty, 
as to a conditional salvation, why not overlook a total neg- 
lect ? The fact that the soul was not saved from all its 
sins, on this hypothesis, is its own fault ; and to say that 
it should be ultimately saved, is all gratuitous, even on 
the mere supposition before us. Such a soul should have 
been " wholly sanctified." It has neglected this " great 
salvation," and how can it "escape?" Granting that it 
had good desires and mental anxiety in struggling for 
this great, second blessing, and hoped to embrace it some 
day, can not be alleged as any reason for a final acquittal ; 
for, on the same ground, God should save millions of re- 
bellious sinners who never take the first step toward 
heaven, simply on the ground that they hojje to repent 
and serve God in their future lives. Hell will be thickly 
populated with those w^ho hoped some time to repent. 

(c) There lies an objection against the whole theory 
of the necessity of a greater work in the heart than 



140 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



regeneration, in case of one dying when merely in that 
state ; for the matter stands thus : While living, the man 
BORN of God stands IN the covenant, in the kingdom, and 
has ALL the Divine favor granted to man in this hfe. Now, 
the advocates of the theory in hand, if they persist in 
their views, are certainly bound to show wherein the soul, 
in passing through death, can fail to be taken into the 
Divine favor in eternity, when it stood in that favor in 
this life; for while living he is a son of God, and God 
recognizes him as such, according to Scripture, all the 
time. Because he is a believer, to him there is " no con- 
demnation." Now, he is instantly killed by some violence 
over which he had no control, and will the entire sanctifi- 
cationist tell why the son on earth should not be the son 
of God in heaven also? Is there any sin in death, or 
does an individual incur Divine wrath by the act of dy- 
ing? May he live in God's favor while on earth, and be 
condemned at last for giving up the ghost ? It has already 
been shown that the new birth is a state of grace, as great 
as any one can show entire sanctification to be ; and if God 
saves what some may suppose to be the wholly sanctified, 
since regeneration is as great a state of favor, why not 
save its subjects also ? Let the advocates of extreme 
sanctity do one of two things : Either take Mr. Watson's 
Theological Dictionary and tell us the essential and dis- 
tinctive difference between his definition of regeneration 
and that of sanctification, as to the extent of the inward 
work in both, and as to the fruit thereof ; or else let them 
show tvhy the man dying in the former should be lost, and 
he in the latter saved; or why any additional blessing to 
regeneration should be at all necessary to his salvation. 

(d) Another objection to a regenerated man's complete 
sanctification taking place in the moment of a sudden death, 
granting that there is such a blessing additional to the 
bhth of the Spirit, exists in the fact that it is a Calvin- 
istic notion, which Mr. Watson himself refutes in what 



Aeg. VIII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



141 



he calls his "fatal objections" to their theory. Calviii- 
istic writers have held that sin must dwell in believers till 
death ; against this view, Mr. "Watson — Theological Insti- 
tutes, Vol. ii, chapter xxix — brings five " fatal objections," 
showing, on the ground of reason and Scripture, that en- 
tire sanctification must occur before death. Now, since 
the argument in hand is not to show that such a blessing 
must be obtained previously to death, but that it can not 
be obtained in death, the last three of Mr. Watson's ob- 
jections need not here be mentioned ; but the first two, as 
to our argument, lie as forcibly against the sanctifica- 
tionist who expects that blessing to be granted in death 
to one regenerated, as it does against the Calvinist. His 
first objection is, " That we no where find the promise of 
entire sanctification restricted to the article of death, either 
expressly, or in fair inference from any passage of Holy 
Scripture.^' Now, if this- objection, which our reason 
really must regard as a fatal " one, be such against 
the Calvinist, who puts ofi" his fin'al stroke to sin till the 
moment of death, it stands with equal force against him 
who believes in such a final stroke to sin at any time after 
regeneration, but who has neglected to realize it till death. 

Mr. Watson's second objection against the Calvinist is, 
'■'That we no where find the circumstance of the souVs union 
tvitJi the body represented as a necessary obstacle to its entire 
sanctification.^' Now, if the union of soul and body is no 
obstacle to this great work, it follows, that if a man has 
been born again, and has lived in that state for some 
time, and has died suddenly without having obtained the 
second blessing, he is culpable in the sight of his Judge 
for not being wholly sanctified, when there was no " nec- 
essary obstacle" in the way of his complete sanctity. 
He has willfully neglected his known duty, and this guilt 
stands against him. And not only this, but entire per- 
fectionists maintain that this second blessing is obtained 
by faith ; and granting this view, also, to be correct, which 



142 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEEFECTION. [Part I. 

is not the case for want of a covenant apart from the 
Abrahamic, in case a regenerated man is instantaneously 
killed, when for years he had, perhaps, been striving to 
obtain that extra blessing, but failed for want of the 
proper faith, as the theory practically works, how simple 
and unfounded it is to think either of such a one exer- 
cising a faith in the twinkling of an eye, which in life, 
health, and reason's full powers he could not and did not 
do during several years, or that he can be saved at all by 
expecting it in death! But Mr. Watson's conclusion 
against the Calvinistic theory deserves our notice. He 
says, "We conclude, therefore, as to the time of our com- 
plete sanctification, or, to use the phrase of the Apostle 
Paul, ' the destruction of the body of sin,' tJiat it can nei- 
ther be referred to the hour of death, nor placed suhsequently 
to this ]JTese7it life.'^ 

There are only three periods in the existence of a soul 
during one of which its entire sanctification can, hypo- 
thetically, take place; namely, during the lifetime of the 
body, in the hour of death, or in eternity. As to the 
first period, we are arguing on the hypothesis of a re- 
generated man having neglected his entire sanctification till 
a sudden and unexpected death call him hence. There- 
fore, our hypothesis excludes the possibility of his com- 
plete sanctity during his lifetime, since he has neglected 
it. And Mr. Watson's conclusion excludes the idea of it 
ever taking place in either of the other two periods, for 
he says, " It can neither he referred to the hour of death, 
nor placed subsequently to this present life." This is 
a conclusion which Mr. Watson draws from very strong and 
clear reasoning. Therefore, since the regenerated man 
has neglected the only period in which he could have ob- 
tained this blessing, admitting it to be Scriptural and 
obtainable, and since he can not obtain it either in death 
or in eternity, if his regeneration does not save him, he 
is lost eternally. We conclude, therefore, 

I 



Aeg. VIII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



143 



1. That the regenerated soul, leaving the body as such, 
is either saved or lost. If saved, then regeneration is 
sufl&cient, and our argument stands. 

2. It can not be lost. For (a) it has been united to 
Christ by regeneration, and St. Paul says he is persuaded 
"that neither death . . . nor any other creature 
shall be able to separate us [the regenerated] from the 
love of God." ih) Dr. Peck, himself a perfectionist, says, 
"It is most absurd to suppose that a justified soul can be 
lost without having forfeited his justification by backsHd- 
ing." So he can not be lost, according to the testimony 
of inspiration and that of sanctificationists themselves. 
Hence he is saved. But he is supposed to have neglected 
any further preparation for eternity than regeneration till 
the hour of death ; therefore its sufficiency is established. 

We here observe, 1. That Dr. Peck on this point seems 
to disagree with Mr. Watson. For he says, speaking of 
those who are justified, " Though their sanctification may 
not be complete, they have the promise of eternal life, 
and of course have the pledge of complete sanctification, 
if they should be cut ofi" by death in that state."* Here 
he speaks of one actually cut off hy death IN that state, 
thereby making out his entire sanctification to occur either 
IN death or after it, the very two things of which Mr. 
Watson says "neither" can be; and he so works the 
case as to get him finally into heaven on a " pledge of 
complete sanctification" growing out of "the promise of 
eternal life" to such as are justified, without quoting the 
"promise" w^here the reader may find his "pledge" of 
sanctification to men cid off hy death." 2. Our Doctor 
actually admits that one may die "m that state;'' namely, 
the regenerate, but Mr. Watson says, of entire sanctity, 
'•^ It can neither he referred to the hour of death, nor placed 
suhsequently to this present Ufer Therefore, if regenera- 
tion is not sufficient, these two divines so conduct the 

* Christian Perfection Abridged, p. 31. 



144 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

case that the soul is lost from the want of that second 
blessing which it is impossible for him ever to get. 
Reader, which horn of this dilemma do you prefer? If 
he is lost you condemn an adopted son, an heir, a believer, 
one who has received Christ by faith, one whom Dr. Peck 
says it is " most absurd " to suppose lost. If you say he 
is saved, you suppose him to be taken to paradise without 
complete sanctification after those two periods in which 
Mr. Watson says he can not obtain that blessing. Hence, 
our argument is correct, and the new birth is sufficient. 
3. But it is contrary to our views of religion practically 
to say that men dying in the regenerated state are lost, 
and shocking to our senses and feelings. Bishop Hamline, 
in his ^'recommendation" to Dr. Peck's work on Chris- 
tian Perfection, says that entire sanctification seems to 
he a mere speculation in the Church, so far as forty-nine- 
FIFTIETHS of her members are Concerned.'' These are the 
words of one of the most sanguine advocates of the 
theory. Now, let us see the results : if forty -nine-fiftieths 
of the professors of religion regard complete sanctity, so 
held, as " a mere speculation," we are confident, from 
observation and a knowledge of the impending facts, that 
the remaining fiftieth part do not possess it ; and so all the 
Church, except a very reduced fraction, according to this 
calculation, must die in a merely-regenerated state at best. 
Do we suppose that they shall be all lost? Forsooth, 
" Let us eat and drink ; for to-morrow we die." 

Although the proof already given in this argument may 
seem sufficient to prove the proposition, there are other 
passages of Scripture so plain and pointed which speak 
of the competency of regeneration for our salvation, this 
blessing being understood as a concomitant of justification, 
that it is proper to mention briefly a few of them. When 
God speaks, man should hear. 

Phil, iii, 7-9 : " But what things were gain to me, those 
I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all 



Arg. VIII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 145 

things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of 
Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss 
of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win 
Christ, and be found in him, not having [i/jS/^ duacoau^rj'^'j 
mine own [justification,] which is of the law, but that 
which is through the faith of Christ, the S'r/.acoffu'^rjv [just- 
ification] which is of God by faith." We will observe 
only two points in this passage. The first is, That the 
apostle is speaking of justification and regeneration, and 
not of any other imvard grace. This is proved (a) by his 
contrasting the justification by faith with that which the 
Jew sought, and which is identical with that which he 
calls mine own justification, which is of the law. (h) It 
will appear that St. Paul is speaking of the new birth 
only, in his using the very word itself which is so trans- 
lated above and put in capital letters, (c) It is so under- 
stood by our commentators. On the expression, But that 
which is through the faith of Christ, Dr. Clarke says, 
Thai justification, which is received by faith through the 
atonement made by Christ." Mr. Wesley and Mr. Benson 
also speak of justification as being taught in this passage. 
Dr. Macknight, as quoted here by Mr. Benson, is very 
clear. He says, " Since the righteousness from the law 
is that which is obtained according to the tenor of the 
law, the righteousness from God hy faith is that which 
comes from God's accounting the believer's faith to him 
for righteousness, and from his working that faith in his 
heart by the influences of his Spirit." Candor, however, 
on the part of the writer, requires him to mention, that 
notwithstanding the arguments already advanced to show 
that the apostle is speaking of regeneration as the only 
inward grace, and that our commentators have taught that 
St. Paul speaks of justification and the new birth con- 
nected therewith, they also speak of the apostle making 
mention of entire sanctification, or at least something be- 
sides, which they call "sanctification." Mr. Wesley, on 

13 



146 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAIS" PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



verse 9, says, "Here also the apostle is far from speaking 
of justification only." On the expression, But that ivldcli 
is through the faith of Christ, Mr. Benson says, "That 
justifying, sanctifying, and practical righteousness which 
is attained through believing in Christ." On the phrase, 
The excellence/ of the knowledge of Christ, Dr. Clarke says, 
"Justification through his blood; sanctification by his 
Spirit." Now, if these authors, by these remarks, mean 
an inward work of the Spirit, additional to regeneration, 
that is, distinct from and greater than the new birth, 
their declarations about such a doctrine are wholly gratu- 
itous. They have not the sanction of the original Greek 
text, in which there is not one word about such a doctrine 
by any name whatever. The idea of sanctification they 
seem to have associated with this passage, simply because 
it is a strong text which gives a very full view of the 
benefits arising from justification. There is no more 
reason to think that sanctification is taught here, as they 
are accustomed to use it, than there is of supposing it to 
be taught in the fourth and fifth chapters of Romans, or 
any where else, where all would admit that justification 
was the apostle's theme. 

The 7ianie of the blessing is what the impartial reader 
must base his opinion upon. This is, the justification 
WHICH IS from God by faith. If this phrase, or name 
of the work, means sanctification, as they use the word, 
and yet obtained at the same time with regeneration, as 
these commentators really seem here to teach, then surely 
there is a manifest inconsistency in speaking of any such 
thing as entire sanctification taking place in the soul, 
perhaps years after it is justified, since justification one 
time is as good as at another ; and to blend the two in 
one is virtually to give up their theory entirely. But this 
blending is a peculiarity of all the writers on the subject. 
Dr. Peck would have a man to be saved by justification 
alone; and at the same time he claims that he must he 



Arg. VIII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



147 



wholly sanctified, "or the soul can never be admitted 
into the glorious presence of God." And Mr. Watson 
fails in his Theological Dictionary to make any conceiv- 
able difference between the doctrines ; his definition of 
sanctification, in his Dictionary, marks Eph. iv, 24, as a 
proof of that doctrine, and our Church Catechism makes 
the same passage a proof of regeneration ; and in this 
instance the two blessings are obtainable at the same time, 
as they seem to teach. Again, it is said of the justified 
man, that " sin remains in him, yea, the seed of all sin, 
till he is sanctified throughout." When men leave the 
subject in such utter darkness and confusion, is it any 
wonder that a bishop of our Church should say of the 
theory, that it " seems to be a mere speculation in the 
Church, so far as forty-nine-fiftieths of her members are 
concerned?" Yet it is hoped that the learning, piety, 
usefulness, and our esteem in common of these good men, 
will not preclude from the mind of the reader the possi- 
biUty of their error on the side of devotion, nor dare the 
thrusts of reason to adduce either a counter-argument or 
a more Scriptural or practical system. Our second ob- 
servation is — 

That our text teaches the sufficiency of 7'egeneration as 
connected loith justificatioyi. This, seems to be the teach- 
ing of St. Paul, as several points will show, {a) For the 
knowledge of Jesus Christ, which is embraced in justifi- 
cation, he counted all things but loss," he counted 
them but dung;" and the things that were "gain" to 
him, he " counted loss for Christ." Now, if the apostle 
cast away such great honors of earth, as he had, for a 
religion that would not save him after. death, bad as this 
world is, he was badly cheated, (h) He underwent all 
his loss for two final objects ; one was, '* that I may win 
Christ ;" the other, that " I may be found in him ;" which 
he explains as, negatively, " not having mine own right- 
eousness, which is of the law,'' and, positively, that " I 



148 



EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



may have the [justification] which is of God by faith." 
All this seems to be a looking forward to the general 
judgment when God shall search men, as the Searcher 
of all hearts," to " find " their moral standing ; and the 
declaration and implication of the whole passage are, that 
St. Paul in that day desired to be found having justifi- 
cation BY FAITH, thereby showing that he regarded it as 
including a sufficiency for his salvation, (c) Our com- 
mentators, no doubt, saw that this passage spoke of justi- 
fication by faith as enough for ultimate happiness, and this 
not being quite their views, they would likely and uncon- 
sciously, as natural to the human mind, think it necessary 
to add something to it. 

Gal. v, 5, 6 : " For we through the Spirit wait for the 
hope of dixaioffu'^rjc; [JUSTIFICATION] by faith. For in 
Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, 
nor uncircumcision ; but faith which worketh by love." 
Now, in chapter vi, verse 15, he says, "For in Christ 
Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncir- 
cumcision, but a new creature." Here we observe, (a) 
that the first clause of the sixth verse of the fifth chap- 
ter and the first clause of the fifteenth verse of the sixth 
chapter are alike, 2Vo?^d for word, (h) Since what is ex- 
pressed in these identical clauses is said not to avail any 
thing in the Christian dispensation, and since the anti- 
thetical or second clause of each verse, respectively, posi- 
tively states what ivill avail, the second clause of each 
verse, though expressed in difi'erent language, must be 
the same in meaning. Now, since the word availeW is 
understood in each one of the second clauses, the meaning 
is, as to the one, that "faith which worketh by love 
AVAILETH," and as to the other, that "a new creature 
AVAILETH." Therefore, the grammarian can see that the 
logical subject of the verb availeth,'' in the one instance, 
is the expression faith luhich worketh hy love,'' and in the 
other it is the phrase " a new creature." These are theo- 



Arg. VIII.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 149 



logically equivalent, as to the point in question, because 
each one "availeth" in the Divine estimation and require- 
ment. But by transposition, if we put the logical subject 
of one clause for the other, in Gal. v, 6, it will read thus : 

We wait for the hope of justification by faith, for in 
Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing . . . 
but a new creature availeth." In this we see that the 
^'hope" of the justified relation, which is the object of 
the apostle's desires and waiting, is nothing else than the 
new creation, or " new creature," that " availeth." There- 
fore, since a new creature is made in the moment of justi- 
fication, as the work of regeneration, the sufficiency of the 
blessing is plain. 

Luke XV, 7 : " More than over ninety-and-nine just 
persons which need no repentance." (a) The word just 
here deserves notice. In the Greek it is 8r/.a(oi<;, dikaiois, 
and is the root of the verb dr/.at6w, dikaioo, which is used 
throughout the New Testament as the word which we con- 
stantly translate by the English verb to justify. As to 
etymological meaning. Professor Crosby,* speaking of the 
meaning of verbs of this kind, as derived from adjectives, 
says, ''To make that which is pointed out by the primi- 
tive; as, drjXuq, (delos,) evident; drjXow^ (deloo,) to make evi- 
dent; douXo^, (^doidos,) servile; douXow^ (douloo,) to inake 
one a slaved From this grammar rule, here well illus- 
trated, we see that to justify a soul is to make that soul — 
dtxaLoq^ dikaios — JUST. This is the strict, etymological 
meaning of the word. This is just what it amounts to, 
reasoning on it from such analogous cases as the above 
examples. Therefore, ninety-and-nine just persons, above 
mentioned, were those, in our Lord's use of the word, who 
had been made just, or, as we say, justified. How nat- 
ural! When God justifies, he makes the soul just; this 
being done, they are regenerated. But of these, he him- 

Greek Grammar, § 318. 



150 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOX. [Part I. 



self positively says that they xeed xo repextaxce 
hence their regeneration is enough. 

Notwithstanding this plain language from the lips of 
our Lord, it is remarkable that Dr. Peck, in Lecture X, 
which he heads, " The way to the attaixmext of Chris- 
TIAX Perfectiox," at the thii^d minor point of instruc- 
tion, savs : " 3. We must exercise feelings of coxtritiox. 
A deep and permanent godly sorrow must take posses- 
sion of our hearts. This feeling will arise from a convic- 
tion of HIDDEX CORRUPTIOXS and IXWARD UXTilKEXESS to 

God — Avill consist in a perfect self-abhorrexce and 
self-renunciation. If we have not wickedly departed 
from God, or backsliddex in heart, it will not imply 
condemnation or a sense of guilt. It is- a feeling which 
is EXTIRELY coxsiSTEXT with a scnsc of the Divine favor, 
or the evidence of pardon."^ These words of the Doctor 
seem to conflict, 

1. "With our Lord's words just quoted; for he speaks 
of one in the Divine favor,'' one not " backslidden in 
heart;" yet '-feelings of contrition," "a deep and per- 
manent godly sorrow,'" are as contrary to Chi'ist's state- 
ment as any thing can be. 

2. His " hidden corruptions " and inward unlikeness 
to God," in one regenerated, no man can reconcile with 
our commonly-received definitions of regeneration; for 
Mr. Watson says, "The change in regeneration consists 
in the recovery of the moral image of God upon the 
heart. "t 

3. Our Doctor conflicts with St. Paul, who, describing 
the justified, as to their incessant stream of joy, says, 
" We stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God ;" 
"no condemnation" have such as are in that very state, 
in which he speaks of "contrition," "godly sorrow," and 
" perfect self-abhorrence." 

* Christian Perfection Abridged, p. 251. 

t Theological Dictionary, Article Regeneeation. 



Arg. IX.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 151 

4. In fact, he seems inconsistent with himself in the 
words quoted ; for how " a deep and permanent godly 
sorroiv must take possession of our hearts," how in- 
ward unlikeness to God," and "hidden corruptions" can 
characterize our hearts, and at the same time " will not 
imply condemnation or a sense of guilt," is what we nei- 
ther understand ourself, nor do we think that it will seem 
clear to others. Let the objector clear up these argu- 
ments before he avers the necessity of a second blessing. 
Moreover, keeping in view the above exposition of the 
word JUST, he may examine all those texts where the 
JUST and the unjust are contrasted, and it will appear as 
the word constantly used to indicate God's people as op- 
posed to those who are not his people. Even after the 
general judgment they are designated by the word just. 
"These [the wicked] shall go aAvay into everlasting pun- 
ishment, but the dty.aioi, [dikaioi, the ones who have been 
justified or made just,] into life eternal." Reader, what 
think you of this ? 0, that we may be JUST with God ! 
Surely the sufficiency we will not doubt after we are 
judged, approbated, and eternally saved. If regenera- 
tion is enough for man's eternal salvation, entire sanctifi- 
cation, as additional, is absolutely useless; and what is 
useless can not be a Bible doctrine. 



ARGUMENT IX. 

Regeneration is the only doctrine, as a work of 
THE Holy Spirit in the heart, that ever Christ 

PREACHED DURING HIS WHOLE PUBLIC MINISTRY. 

This may seem like a startling proposition when it 
sounds for the first time on the ears of those who hold the 
adopted theory of entire sanctification. The declaration, 



152 EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet I. 

however, is made, and there is proof in its favor. 
That this proposition is true, is no more than the mind 
would expect, granting the truth of those already discussed. 
And although this argument is wholly included in former 
ones, in the very nature of the case, it is hoped, neverthe- 
less, that it will not be regarded as a repetition of pro- 
posed ideas, or as wholly unnecessary to the subject gen- 
erally. If the position we cherish is correct, it is hoped 
a more extended inquiry into Biblical truth will not weary 
the reader, injure the truth itself, defame the holy charac- 
ter of its Divine Author, or be unproductive of good. 

One or two specimens of the Master's preaching will 
suffice to prove our proposition. In a former argument 
it was shown that Christ preached regeneration to Nico- 
demus. It was no other blessing than this — the very 
same as St. Paul preached afterward — the same that all 
the apostles preached. This our Lord named by the 
phrases "born again," and "born of the Spirit." He 
argued the necessity of this new birth, but he did not even 
mention, or slightly allude to entire sanctification, as ad- 
ditional, much less argue its necessity. And since he was 
the same God now manifest in the flesh, who "preached 
before the Gospel unto Abraham," that had preached it 
in a covenant, the condition wherein was faith on the part 
of the patriarch and on the part of all his spiritual seed, 
as an unchangeable being it seems impossible for him to 
have preached another kind of religion to Nicodemus than 
that which he had preached to Abraham. This was the 
Gospel — multum in parvo — "/n thee shall all nations he 
hlessedJ^ This blessing implied the regeneration of Abra- 
ham's nature — nothing further as an inward work. So 
of all Avho shall walk in his steps — who shall be blessed 
" with faithful Abraham." This is the tenor of St. Paul's 
Epistle to the Galatians. No more did God then require 
of the "father of the faithful" to obtain remission of sins 
than a compliance with the covenant condition — faith 



Arg. IX.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



153 



ONLY. Now, at a remote period of the world from that, 
he preaches the same to the ruler of the Jews, showing 
him that it is by faith^ as represented by Moses lifting up 
the serpent in the wilderness. Christ preached at this 
time either a doctrine entirely ncAv, or else the same that 
he had preached when he first made known the promise 
of a Redeemer. If he preached a neiv doctrine, then he 
would, at the present day, save men in a different manner 
from that in which he saved them in ages past ; but such 
a notion as this may imply either that himself has changed, 
or that he has two ways of saving men entirely different, 
neither of which seems tenable. 

Moreover, the very nature of the covenant of grace will 
not admit of any change, as to the condition of pardon, 
and as to the blessing accompanying that pardon. For 
the condition will always be faith, and nothing else, and 
the thing imputed will always be justification, with re- 
generation, and no other inward work. If our Lord 
preached to Nicodemus the old doctrine, it is presumable 
that he would give it its own characteristics, since new 
doctrines must necessarily differ from old ones by which 
very difference they are called new. These character- 
istics show that to Abraham and Nicodemus the same 
doctrine was preached. The ancient Church of God and 
the present one, as to spiritual principles, are identical. 

The mere external forms in each, respectively, make no 
actual difference. As to this point we notice: {a) That 
each dispensation offers the same Savior, whom God 
promised as his part in the covenant with Abraham. 
(h) The fact of Christ pointing out the manner of obtain- 
ing regeneration by the act of faith, when he referred 
Nicodemus to the incident of Moses lifting up the serpent 
in the wilderness, shows conclusively that he thereby 
referred as certainly to faith, which was required of man 
in the covenant, as he did to God's part in the same cove- 
nant in offering himself to Nicodemus as the same Savior 



154 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



who was offered to Abraham. The final object, indeed, 
of the lifting up of the Son of man will determine this, 
''That whosoever belieteth in him should not perish, 
but have eternal life." (c) But why was this apparently- 
incidental reference, or strictly-implied observance of the 
Abrahamic covenant, made by our Lord, unless that cove- 
nant and its conditions were prominent in his mind while 
preaching to Xicodemus the oxly plan of salvation, the 
doctrine he then taught and that preached to Abraham 
being the same ? (d) But that announced to the patriarch 
being regeneration, exclusive of any subsequent blessing 
whatever, shows that Christ preached no other doctrine 
than it as a fitness for heaven, (e) As another proof of 
the point in question, let us consider the Gospel message, 
" Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 
xvi, 15, 16. ^^"ow, that the Gospel contained in this mes- 
sage, and that which was preached to Abraham are the 
same, a few points will show. The sermon to the patri- 
arch was : " In thee shall all nations be blessed." 

The first point of analogy, or rather identity, common 
to both these passages, we will regard as the extent of the 
work or mission — that which Christ preached and taught 
his disciples, was that they should go into all the world. 
The expression makes the message as extensive as lan- 
guage can express it, in a geographical respect. It ap- 
plies to the whole world. It is also extensive as to its 
subjects^ which are said to be '''every creature that is, 
every creature of mankind — the entire genus homo. The 
message, therefore, is extensive geographically and as to 
its subjects. Kow, the Gospel preached to Abraham was 
extensive in these two respects, also, because it is said, 
" In thee shall all xatioxs be blessed," which implies ex- 
tension in both the particulars mentioned. The ancient 
and present Gospel herein are identical. 



Arg. IX.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



155 



A second point of identity in the two passages is the 
message itself. In the one instance it is said that " the 
Gospel" was preached to Abraham. In the other it is 
said, " Go ye into all the world, and preach ' the Gospel.' " 
In this respect, also, w^e find them the same. 

A third item of sameness is the condition on which 
this Gospel is to be received by men. "The Scripture 
foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham." " He 
believed in the Lord." Gen. xv, 6. It was faith on 
man's part. God had appointed this as the condition of 
pardon in the covenant made with Abraham. Had he not 
believed, God would not have counted righteousness to 
him. He would then have broken the condition of the 
covenant, and this being done, the covenant itself would 
have been broken; consequently, God, by his oath of in- 
tegrity, would not have been bound to give him any of 
the benefits of the atonement, as to the pardon of sin, 
had in Christ whom he promised to give as the Savior. 
On this hypothesis Abraham would have been " damned," 
simply from the want of a Savior. As the fact was, his 
faith saved him: According to the hypothesis his unbe- 
lief would have made the " promise of God of none effect," 
which was God's declaration that all, as believers, should 
be spiritually blessed in Abraham. Hence Abraham's 
salvation was conditional, depending on his faith, and his 
condemnation also depending on his unbelief. So in the 
Gospel message it is said, " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved." In this the condition of eternal 
life is as clearly marked as in the case of Abraham, for 
it is the believer who shall be saved, the salvation wholly 
depending on his faith. Again : " He that believeth not 
shall be damned," is a further part of the condition of 
this Gospel message. That is, unbelief is the cause of 
his condemnation — the latter depending on the former. 
(/) Now, " damnation," as threatened in the Gospel mes- 



156 



EEYIETV OF TVESLETAN PERFECTIOX. [Part I. 



sage, is a forensic term. It may be styled the contrary 
of justification, which is said to be a "forensic" or legal 
word. But if forensic, to damn is an act of Divine justice 
whereby God punishes sin. The question naturally arises, 
Wherein does the mere act of unbelief constitute sin f For 
it is plain to Arminians that a just and all-wise God can 
not pronounce the sentence of ''damnation" on any one 
of his intelhgent creatures, except that creature has vio- 
lated some law in the Divine economy, whereby he should 
become guilty before God. Hence it becomes us to 
inquire what law it can be. 

It can not be the law of works, and, therefore, suffer- 
ing the penalty of Adam's transgression. That one man 
should suffer for the sin of another would be unjust. 
"Every man shall give an account of himself to God." 
Nor can it be an arbitrary decree of unconditional, personal 
reprobation. Such would be contrary to our ideas of the 
present probationary life which we have, and of the anal- 
ogy of all things concerning us in this life, not to mention 
a score of objections to such a notion deducible from a better 
view of the Divine Being and his revelation to man. But 
the sin being found in unbelief, whereby one is condemned, 
the moral law that is violated is, indeed, the condition of 
the Abrahamic covenant. For the sins, in breaking the 
commands of the decalogue, may rather be regarded as 
the fruits of the sinner, made such by unbelief in break- 
ing the term of the covenant. The accusation of the 
Judge, "I was a stranger, and ye took me not in," etc., 
implies this, otherwise salvation is not by faith but by 
works. This covenant was in the mind of Christ through- 
out all his preaching. In the Gospel message it is im- 
plied as strongly and clearly as any thing can be. Its 
promulgation, as a known law of God that men should 
observe and obey, is also implied. But when did God 
ever pubhsh to man such a law? The only answer, in 
fairness, is, when he made the covenant with Abraham 



Arg. IX.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



157 



and plainly set forth its condition to him — a condition 
most prominent in all our Savior's preaching, whether by 
parable or otherwise. He that said, "He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth 
NOT shall be damned," said also, "He that believeth on 
the Son hath everlasting life : and he that believeth not 
the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth 
on him." Again, both in the Old and New Testaments, 
where the Almighty's denunciations are spoken in burn- 
ing language against the Jews, it is on account of their 
unbelief." " Who hath believed our report," was the 
complaint of Isaiah long before the advent of our Lord, 
and himself cried, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would 
have believed me." So throughout all the Epistles, 
there is a constant implication of the Abrahamic covenant 
by the use of the words "JeZz'et'e" and "/ai/A," as well 
as by the actual naming of that covenant and its full 
exposition with its application to us as to its condition 
and blessings. A fourth point of sameness, as to the 
Gospel of the old and new dispensations, is the sign of 
the inward grace in each respectively. In the covenant, 
the sign taught was circumcision ; and in Christ's message 
water-baptism,^ merely as the sign of the inward grace, 
is distinctly mentioned. We say merely, as opposed to its 
being any part of, or essential to obtaining inward purity ; 
for many objections might be alleged against water-bap- 
tism being essential to pardon. Let a few suffice. 

{a) The fatal one is, if we had no other, that baptism 
is not the condition of the covenant of grace at all. And 
baptism in the Christian dispensation either takes the 
place of circumcision in the Jewish or it does not. If it 
does not, then all those who lived before the present dis- 
pensation, and who were saved, obtained salvation without 
either baptism or any thing similar to it. If it does, then 

Christian baptism answers to, and is instituted in the place of, Jewish 
cireumoision." (Hibbard's Baptism, Part I, p. 61.) 



158 



EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



Abraham was in a saved state nearly fourteen years hefore 
lie received circumcision — the equivalent of baptism. 

(6) If baptism is absolutely essential to regeneration, 
and must accompany faith — the sole condition in the cov- 
enant whereby we obtain remission of sins, then the plain 
implication is that faith " only " is msufficient to save ; and 
so to introduce water-baptism as an indispensable semi- 
savior, is virtually an absolute denial of justification by 
faith only, that doctrine which has stood since the first 
promise of our Savior was given, and which is " A MOST 

WHOLESOME DOCTRINE, AND VERY FULL OF COMFORT." 

(c) If water-baptism is positively needful for the par- 
don of sin and the regeneration of the soul, then, in case 
one has been pardoned in this way — granting the possi- 
bility of such pardon — and afterward commit sin in any 
manner, he must be baptized again and again, ad infini- 
tum, in order to be pardoned of such subsequent sins. 
This is Scriptural in such a case; for, when the Church 
of Ephesus had left their "first love," the Spirit said, '^I 
have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy 
first love : . . repent and do the first works." Rev. 
ii, 5. Now, it is held by such religionists that the first 
works are ''repentance, faith, and baptism" in order to 
pardon; hence, for every time a man sins, in departing 
from his " first love," he must repent, believe, and be bap- 
tized to procure the Divine favor, if it be once a week all 
his life ! 

But the objector is taught to say, "By no means; for 
since the subject has been baptized, he may 7iow pray; 
before he was baptized, being a sinner, he had no right to 
pray !" This objection may be settled by a few fair ques- 
tions. (1.) Who baptized the thief on the cross before he 
prayed? (2.) Why did not Peter command that the Gen- 
tiles should be baptized before they received the gift of 
the Holy Ghost instead of after it, the account of Avhich is 
given in the tenth chapter of Acts, beginning at verse 44 ? 



Arc. IX.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



159 



(3.) As to the practical character of such an opinion as 
that of a penitent sinner having no right to pray, is there 
not much objection ? Suppose a man Avho is well informed 
as to religious duty, who has read the Bible much, and 
has heard many excellent sermons, should live in sin, and 
enter the army as a sinner thus well informed, as thou- 
sands have done, and should be mortally wounded and 
neglected on the battle-field for several days — no one near 
to lend him aid. He perceives that he must die from loss 
of blood, from hunger, and thirst. His first thought is 
to prepare for death and eternity. He believes in the 
necessity of w^ater-baptism, however, to pardon of sin; 
but, alas ! no second person is there to baptize him ; no 
water is there in sufficient quantity to immerse him ! Or 
he may be cast alone on some barren island to perish, 
w^here there is water all around, and no one to administer 
the ordinance! How sad such cases as these! How 
miserably defective ! But such a poor wretch who be- 
lieves the truth of a better hope, though his eyes be 
gleaming in death, yet, with Abrahamic faith, " staggers 
not at the promise through unbelief," and moves the com- 
passion of Jesus in his behalf, realizing in his heart that 
"he that believeth on him is not condemned." 

{d) Another serious objection to baptism as essential to 
the remission of sin, is, that — granting its essentiality — 
it may absolutely fail to manifest such salutary import- 
ance. In the eighth chapter of Acts there is a plain 
account given of one Simon who "believed" and "was 
baptized," yet after his baptism — which, of course, was 
administered in due form as to mode — he was found "in 
the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Here 
is an instance of baptism administered properly, and yet 
it left its subject a base sinner still, worthy and well 
qualified for the scathing rebuke of the apostle. Now, 
since it has been shown that the thief was saved without 
baptism, and also the Gentiles before baptism, and since 



160 



REVIEW OF WESLErAN PERFECTION. 



[Part T. 



it actually failed to save Simon, it amounts to demonstra- 
tion that it is not essential to regeneration. Nor can the 
objector say that the case of Simon lies equally against 
faith as being essential to regeneration, since it is said 
that Simon "believed." Por, there may be a merely 
nominal faith, and the person exercising such, as a mere 
assent to truth, may be in this sense, said to believe. The 
simple belief of assent, that "Jesus Christ was the Son 
of God," was characteristic of this case. The devils have 
the same kind of faith, and if this entitles them to bap- 
tism, as a saving ordinance, all they need is immersion. 
Faith may not amount to a saving trust in God at all. 
This is the kind that Simon had, or he would not have 
remained, like many others, a baptized sinner "in the gall 
of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Mr. Wesley 
properly says of the faith of Simon, that he " was con- 
vinced of the truth." 

In this respect there is what we may call degrees in 
faith. For there, truly, is a faith in God even among 
bad men, as to his existence and attributes, while such 
may not be justifying faith, or that which is " unto sal- 
vation." But there can be no degree in baptism. This 
instance has just as much saving quality in it as any in- 
stance since the day that the ordinance was instituted, 
and yet it left Simon's "heart" "not right in the sight 
of God." So it leaves every man who depends on it for 
salvation. Now, those who make it, in most positive 
terms, essential to regeneration, would do well to notice 
three things. (1.) There is no passage of sacred Scrip- 
ture that clearly declares water-baptism to be essential to 
pardon. (2.) Salvation thi'ough water-baptism is not once 
argued in the Bible, while whole books of the New Testa- 
ment consist in full and elaborate argument to prove 
justification hy faith OXLY. Those passages which have 
been taken, by different religionists, to teach a doctrine 
that in any way would conflict with that of justification hy 



Arg. IX.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 161 

faith ONLY, are always incidentally and disconnectedly 
expressed. (3.) To remove these few, out of the many 
objections that might be adduced, before they persist in 
their belief; for he who makes baptism the substance, in- 
stead of a mere shadow or sign of inward purity, and puts 
his trust in it, is as simple as the dog of fable, which was 
passing over a stream of water with a bone in his mouth, 
and supposing that he saw another dog in the water with 
a bone also, not discerning the difference between the 
substance and the shadow, dropped the reality, caught at 
the shadow — lost all! These objections, then, being laid 
aside, as mere side issues bordering on the question, and 
deserving some notice, the four points of identity between 
the preaching of Christ and that Gospel preached to Abra- 
ham, are, as the mind would naturally suppose, enough to 
show that the message given to the disciples, and the 
Gospel preached to the patriarch, are one and the same, 
in every essential respect. But that preached to the lat- 
ter was not entire sanctification, as such, but it was justi- 
fication which God imputed to him for his faith. Now, 
the Gospel in both dispensations thus found to be the 
same, and that preached to Nicodemus admitted to be re- 
generation and not complete sanctity, being perpetually 
taken by the advocates of the latter to prove the former, 
it is most conclusive that there never was another doc- 
trine, as an inward work, preached by the one eternal 
Christ since the morning of time. And unless the advo- 
cates of their peculiar sanctity can prove that their doc- 
trine was preached to Abraham, both it and their argu- 
ments must fall. Since it is not implied in the covenant, 
since St. Paul continually called it justification, and since 
the Gospel message implies that very thing, it may be safe 
to say, that he who preaches entire sanctification, preaches 
more than the covenant of grace, more than the commis- 
sion to the disciples warrants, and more than Christ did. 

''He that hath ears to hear let him hear." 

14 



162 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet I. 



ARGUMENT X. 

Entire sanctification, as an inward blessing sub- 
sequent TO REGENERATION, IS OBJECTIONABLE. 

1. It is objectionable because not Scriptural, according 
to fair and established rules of interpretation, as to the 
use of the context in theological writings. Whenever the 
theologian attempts to give the sense of any passage of 
Scripture, having connection with a discourse, or argu- 
ment on the part of its inspired author, he ought to pay 
particular respect to the context. This is reasonable and 
fair; for vre find that men of learning, who have written 
on the best mode of expounding the Scriptures, have 
given special directions on this department of Biblical 
exegesis. I may instance among these the " Introduction 
to the Study of the Bible by" Mr. "Thomas Hartwell 
Home," a book deserving a place in the library of every 
preacher and theological student; a book recommended, 
also, by the usage of our Church, to her ministers in the 
regular course of study, as given in the Discipline. This 
book speaks well on the observance of the context, as 
necessary to a correct interpretation of the sacred Scrip- 
tures. It says, " Another most important assistance for 
investigating the meaning of words and phrases, is the 
consideration of the context^ or the comparison of the 
preceding and subsequent parts of a discourse ; as this 
alone, in many instances, can enable us to determine 
that signification which is best adapted to any word or 
passage."^ 

The same usage is necessary in the investigation of the 
words of the written law. Thus Blackstone says, " The 
fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of 
the legislator is by exploring his intentions at the time 

* Home's Introduction, abridged edition, p, 116. 



Aug. X.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



163 



when the law was made, by signs the most natural and 
probable; and these signs are either the words, the con- 
text, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or 
the spirit and reason of the law."* 

Now, I say, as to these facts as rules of interpreta- 
tion, that those who have written on Christian perfection, 
as a separate work from regeneration, have not observed 
the context, according to the fair and established usage 
of Scriptural exegesis. For illustration : Dr. Peck, in 
the ninth chapter of his work on Christian Perfection, 
heads this chapter, " Direct Scripture Proofs," that is, 
proofs of entire sanctification or Christian perfection ; he 
regarding these as synonymous expressions. After some 
introductory remarks in the beginning of this ninth chap- 
ter, he says, "We have ample Scripture testimony which 
we suppose directly in point. This I shall now proceed 
to adduce. 

''1. I first urge that God commands us to be perfect 
^Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven 
is perfect.' Matt, v, 48. Again : ' Finally, brethren, 
farewell. Be perfect.' ^ Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy 
mind, with all thy strength.' Mark xii, 30. ^Having 
therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse 
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per- 
fecting holiness in the fear of God.' 2 Cor. vii, 1. I 
need add no further instances of this class, because if the 
argument which I base on these is valid, the evidence 
they afford is perfectly conclusive ; but if unsound, a mul- 
titude of passages of the same class would give it no ad- 
ditional strength." 

Such is the quotation which I take from Dr. Peck's 
book, p. 207. I do not intend to argue, in this place, 
the meaning of these passages, as I understand them, and 
prove the same from the context of each respectively, 

* Chitty 's Blackstone's Commentaries on laws of England, Vol. i, p. 40. 



164 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



but I wish to observe that the Doctor did not call in 
the context to his aid once, but he has just given the 
passages as he finds them, and takes it for granted that 
they all mean the imvard work of grace in the heart, and 
supposes that his readers will take them in the same 
sense. I say, however, without argument in this place, 
as I will treat of these texts and ones similar to them in 
the second part of this work, that these proof-passages of 
the 6octor do not refer to the inward work of grace, but 
to the outward; that is, to the keeping of the law of God, 
as the fruit of the inward work. The author of the 
" Plain Account of Christian Perfection,^' page 54, brings 
forth the same passages in proof of the same point, to 
show that God has given direct commands that we should 
be perfect; and from the author's manner of treating the 
subject throughout, it is evident that he uses the word 
"perfect," and such like, in his quotations in the sense 
of a deeper work of grace in the heart than that of regen- 
eration. And this being so, I say concerning him, as 
concerning Dr. Peck, that the contexts of the passages 
will not sustain him in his position; but they will show 
that perfection means the outward duties and obligations 
of the Christian religion, as the fruit of the inward work, 
which work is nothing more nor less than regeneration. 

Now, one so disposed, could easily institute an argu- 
ment, and prove his point from the Bible, to show that 
there is no God. He might bring the "Direct Scripture 
Proofs," but who would pronounce such an argument valid? 
One glance at the context would show him that it repre- 
sents the fool as saying that there is no God. And yet 
there is absolutely no more reason why Ave should pay 
any more attention to the context in this passage, which 
brings the "Direct Scripture Proof" that there is no God, 
than that we should observe it in those proofs of perfec- 
tion as held by Dr. Peck and others. 

Again, any one disposed to believe in the unconditional 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 165 

election and reprobation taught by John Calvin and his 
followers, might take "Direct Scripture Proofs" from the 
ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in these 
words: ('^For the children being not yet born, neither 
having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, 
according to election, might stand, not of works, but of 
him that calleth;) it was said unto her. The elder shall 
serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, 
but Esau have I hated." Now, such an argument would 
be sound, so far as " Direct Scripture Proofs " are con- 
cerned, and many have fallen into the Calvinistic theory 
because they have looked at such " proofs " apart from 
their contexts, which contexts are as essential to the true 
meaning of St. Paul in this passage, as the union of the 
head and body is to the animal life. Nor is there any 
Arminian writer who can extricate himself and his friends 
from the arguments of Calvinists, as based on such pas- 
sages as those in Romans, who will not take the context, 
which in this case embraces the whole Epistle from the 
beginning, and also what follows, and therefrom show that 
the apostle is only illustrating God's great plan of saving 
both Jews and Gentiles by faith, instead of by an uncon- 
ditional election saving some through a narrowly-contracted 
partiality, and by reprobation rejecting others as if by 
hatred. 

It is by a clear argument from the context that Rev. 
Richard Watson* has forever vindicated the Arminian 
faith, wherein, in our opinion, he has consigned uncondi- 
tional election and reprobation to eternal oblivion. In 
treating on Rom. viii, 30, ''Whom he did predestinate, 
them he also called: and w^hom he called, them he also 
justified : and w^hom he justified, them he also glorified," 
as to the context, this eminent theologian says : " The 
chapter in which the text is found is the lofty and anima- 
ting conclusion of St. Paul's argument on justification by 

* Institutes, chapter xxvi. 



166 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEEFECTIOX. 



[Paht I. 



faith : it is a discourse of that present state of pardon and 
sanctity, and of that future hope and felicity, into which 
justification introduces believers, notwithstanding those 
sufferings and persecutions of the present life to which 
those to whom he wrote were exposed, and under which 
they had need of encouragement. It was obviously not 
in his design here to speak of the doctrines of election 
and non-election, however these doctrines may be under- 
stood. There is nothing in the course of his argument 
which leads to them, and those who make use of the text 
ill question for this purpose are obliged, therefore, to press 
it, by circuitous inferences, into their service. As the 
passage stands in intimate connection with an important 
and elucidatory context, it ought not to be considered as 
insulated and complete in itself : which has been the great 
source of erroneous interpretations."^ 

From this we see the use of a context, as used in im- 
portant passages by so great a reasoner as Rev. Richard 
Watson, and also his opinion, that the great source of 
erroneous interpretations " has been by considering pas- 
sages of Scripture as " insulated and complete in them- 
selves.^' And this is, forsooth, the very thing that our 
writers on Christian perfection have done, in giving what 
they have called Direct Scripture Proofs. Mr. Wat- 
son himself has done it, as well as Dr. Peck, in giving 
2 Cor. vii, 1, and 1 Thess. v, 23, as his proof of entire 
sanctification in the Institutes. These texts will be ex- 
amined in their place in this respect. Our rational 
nature, therefore, is disposed to pronounce their works 
on perfection objectionable on the same ground that them- 
selves object to others, and in accordance with the received 
rules of Biblical exeo^esis. 

2. Entire sanctification, so termed, is objectionable because 
it is contrary to the real Biblical meaning — the usus 
loquendi — of Sr^ta^w, hagiazo, to sanctify,-and its derivative, 

* Institutes, Vol. ii, p. 356. 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 167 



ayiaffixoi;^ hagiasmos, sandification. Writers on Christian 
perfection and sanctification teach that to sanctify is to 
do an inward work in the heart. That is to say, they 
teach that to be sanctified is to have the heart reneiued. 
In the "Plain Account of Christian Perfection," p. 48, is 
found this language in the form of question and answer : 
" Question. What is it to be sanctified ? Answer. To be 
RENEWED in the image of God, 'in righteousness and true 
holiness.' " Again : Dr. Peck — " Christian Perfection," 
p. 30 — thus defines sanctification : " Sanctification is the 
RENOVATION OF THE HEART." Now, I am not a willful 
fault-finder, yet I am inclined to disagree with great 
men sometimes, and so in this instance. If to sanctify 
means to renew in the image of God, and if sanctification 
means a renovation of the heart, then, of course, the former 
means the inward act, and is synonymous with to regen- 
erate, to beget again, to quicken, etc., all of which, according 
to Mr. Watson's definition of regeneration as found in his 
Theological Dictionary, mean " the recovery of the moral 
image of God upon the heart,'' since these several terms 
mean that act of the Holy Spirit by which this work 
of regeneration is produced. Hence, to sanctify the heart, 
in the sense of a renewal in the image of God, as the 
Plain Account of Christian Perfection has it, is just to 
do nothing at all, as a separate and distinct work ; for this 
has, according to Mr. Watson, all been done in the act of 
regeneration, which he has told us is just the same work, 
namely : " The recovery of the moral image of God upon 
THE HEART." And the latter means the inward action, and 
is equivalent to regeneration, the new birth, a quickening, 
or any other word that will express all the conceivable, 
inward work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a true 
child of God. But such is not the case, in our opinion ; 
for the words under consideration do not appear to have 
such a meaning as to convey the idea of an inward act, 
and of an internal state of grace. That is, they do not 



168 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

signify the taking away of sin from the heart and this act 
having been wrought. 

As I am not unaware of the fact that some may regard 
this assertion as daring in a polemic, yet wishing to be 
honest, and to follow truth regardless of consequences, I 
will now give some of the most accredited authorities in 
defining the verb to sanctify. This word, taking things in 
their proper order, is first found in the Old Testament 
Scriptures in many places, and since this portion of the 
Bible was originally written in the Hebrew language, I 
will first give the Hebrew verb precisely as it is in Gese- 
nius's Hebrew-English Lexicon, and I will give every 
reference and word just as I find it. 

"lynj^ and K^ij^ Num. xvii, 2, fut. 

^'1. To he pure, clean, pr. of physical purity and 
cleanness: see Hithpa, No. 1, and adj. I'Mij^. Kinder, 
is pesh. i!nn, of which the primary idea is 'to be bright.' 
Hence, 

"2. To he holy, sacred, sanctus; so in all the kin- 
dred dialects, espec. in Pi, or Pa. (a) Of a person who 
consecrates himself to God, and so regards himself as 
holier than the profane, vulgar. Is. Ixv, 5, T^"i^?^p' ^ 
holy unto thee, for "(i 'i^t^/nj^; or of those who are conse- 
crated by touching sacred things. Ex. xxix, 37; xxx, 
29 ; Lev. vi, 11, 20. (h) Of things destined for the sa- 
cred worship. Num. xvii, 2, 3 ; Ex. xxix, 21 ; or which 
are consecrated by the contact of sacred things. 1 Sam. 
xxi, 6 ; Hag. ii, 12 ; or which are devoted to the sacred 
treasury. Deut. xxii, 9. 

" NiPH. 1. To he regarded and treated as holy, to he hal- 
lowed, sanctified, sc. God, c. 3. Lev. x, 3; xxii, 32. 
Also, to shotv one^s self holy, glorious, in any one, either by 
bestowing favors, Ez. xx, 41 ; xxviii, 25 ; xxxvi, 23 ; 
xxxviii, 16 ; xxxix, 27 ; or by inflicting judgments, Ez. 
xxviii, 22: Num. xx, 13; Comp. Is. v, 16. 2. To he con- 
secrated, e. g., the sacred tabernacle. Ex. xxix, 43. 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



169 



PiEL. li^ip, to make holy, to sanctify, to hallow, that is, 
1. To hold sacred, to regard and treat as holy, as God. 
Deut. xxxii, 51 ; a priest, Lev. xxi, 8 ; the Sabbath, to 
keep holy, Ex. xx, 8; Deut. v, 12; Neh. xiii, 22; Jer. 
xvii, 22 ; xxiv, 27 ; Ez. xx, 20. 2. To pronounce holy, to 
sanctify, e. g., the Sabbath, Gen. ii, 3 ; a people, Lev. xx, 
8; xxi, 8. Also, to institute any holy thing, to appoint, 
e. g., a fast, Joel i, 14; ii, 15 — parallel with N^j^ — a fes- 
tival, 2 Kings X, 20. 3. To consecrate, e. g., a priest, Ex. 
xxviii, 41; xxix, 1; 1 Sam. vii, 1; an altar, the temple, 
Ex. xxix, 36 ; Lev. viii, 15 ; Num. vii, 1 ; 1 Kings viii, 
64; the first-born. Ex, xiii, 2; the people of Israel, Ex. 
xix, 10, 14 ; Josh, vii, 13 ; a building when completed, 
Neh. iii, 1 ; a mountain, as separate and distinguished 
from all others, Ex. xix, 23. Hence, to consecrate or 
sanctify with solemn rites, e. g., by lustrations for sacrifice, 
1 Sam. xvi, 5 ; Job. i, 5 ; troops for battle, Jer. li, 27. 
Comp. Hiph. Also, nnnSp ty^p, to consecrate, or inau- 
gurate, a war, battle — that is, with sacred rites, Comp, 
Psa. cx, 3 ; 1 Sam. vii, 9, 10 — q. d., to prepare, to begin, 
Joel, iv, 9; Jer. vi, 4. Trop. Mic. iii, 5. Pual part, 
ly-ipp, consecrated, spoken of priests and sacred things, 
Ez. xlviii, 11; 2 Chr. xxvi, 18; xxxi, 6; Is. xiii, 3. 
'^7p?5 '^^y consecrated ones, that is, soldiers whom I have 
consecrated to war; Comp. Jer. li, 27. Hiph. 1, i. q. 
Pi., No. 1, Is. viii, 13 ; xxix, 22 ; Num. xx, 12. 2, i. q. 
Pi,, No. 2, to pronounce holy, to sanctify, Jer. i, 5. 3, i. q. 
Piel No. 3, to consecrate to God, Lev. xxvii, 14; sq. 
Judges xvii, 3 ; 2 Sam. viii, 11 ; 1 Chr. xxvi, 27. Also, 
of God, to sanctify, to hallow for himself, e. g., the first- 
born. Num. iii, 13; viii, 17; the temple, 1 Kings ix, 3, 7. 
HiTHP. 1, to cleanse or purify one's self, by sacred ablu- 
tions and observances ; 2 Sam. xi, 4 ; nnxr^^o n^ipjiD j<^n], 
for she had purified herself from her uncleanness; Is. 
Ixvi, 17, coupled with ">nDn. Often of the priests and 
Levites, as purifying themselves for the holy service, 

15 



170 



KEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part 1. 



Ex. xix, 22; 1 Chr. xv, 12, 14; 2 Chr. v, 11; xxix, 15, 
al. Comp. Kal. No. 1. ^. To show one's self holy, that is, 
pure from guilt, to sanctify one's self, Lev. xi, 44 ; xx, 7 ; 
of God as the punisher of guilt, Ez. xxxviii, 23. 3. To 
he celebrated, kept, e. g., a festival. Is. xxx, 29." 

Here ends the definition of the verb to sanctify, as given 
in the Hebrew Lexicon — Dictionary. In every instance, 
even to a punctuation mark, it is verbatim. For the as- 
sistance of the reader, who may be unacquainted with the 
Hebrew, I Avill here add a few words of explanation, es- 
sential to an understanding of the abbreviations which it 
employs. There are some of those also from the Latin. 
Thus: "fut.," for future; "pr.," properly; "no.," num- 
ber; ''adj.," adjective; "kind.," kindred; "per.," per- 
haps; " esp.," especially; "sc.," scilicet, to wit; "c," the 
initial letter of cum, with; " paralL," pamM; "comp.," 
compare; "q. d.," the initials of two Latin words, quasi 
dicat, as if it should say; "Trop.," tropically; ^'^art.,'' par- 
ticiple; " i. q.," initials for id quod, the same as. Besides 
these, the first division in the definition is called Kal, 
and extends to the abbreviated word "niph." The words 
"Kal," and the abbreviated words in capital letters, 
found in the definition, are the names of the parts of the 
Hebrew verb. They are called the species of the verb. 
They correspond, for the most part, to the voices in the 
English verb, as found in our own English grammars. 
Kal is the active voice; Niph'al is the passive voice; 
PiEL is the intensive active; Pual is the intensive passive; 
Hiph'hil is the causative active; Hithpa'hel is the reflexive. 

Now, every-where in the Old Testament, in which this 
verb is found, it is in one or the other of these species or 
voices. If it is found in the Hebrew Scripture in the 
Kal form, the word is defined in the Kal species, or 
division of this definition. If it is found in the Niph'hal, 
in the Bible, its definition is found in that part which 
comes under Niph'hal, and so of the rest. 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



171 



i^Tow, reader, observe two things : 1. You here have the 
meaning of the verb to sanctify, as given by what may 
be regarded as the best authority in the world, and per- 
haps is; it is sufficiently explained to you, and several 
proof-passages given under each division. 2. Observe 
that in the many passages referred to in the definition, 
not one of them means to take away sin, or to blot out sin 
from the heart; that is, none of them means to quicken 
a soul "dead in trespasses and sins;" none of them means 
to purify morally. And, since this is so, it does not sig- 
nify to sanctify, in the sense of a renovation of the 
heart," in all the Hebrew Bible ! Nor can I find the 
word sanctification in the English Old Testament ! The 
Hebrew word li'Tp, kodhesh, derived from the verb above 
given, is not once defined by the word sanctification, 
which it should mean as the proper abstract idea of the 
verb, if the latter means to sanctify, in the sense of to 
renovate the heart. Of this noun, the most that Gesenius 
says, in favor of entire sanctification, is : " Rarely only, 
and in doubtful examples, is it to be rendered as ab- 
stract holiness. Am. iv, 2; Psa. Ix, 8; cviii, 8, in which 
places 'i^1j^3, is usually translated, by my (Jiis) holi- 

ness; perhaps more correctly, in my (his) sanctuary. 
Septuagint in Psa. 11. cc, rw ayi'oj ab-uo]' that is, in his 
sanctuary. Now, in all the passages in the above quota- 
tion, as the references will show, the holiness is predicated 
of God, and not of the inward purity of the heart of 
man. The passages in the Psalms will be found in our 
English Bible, in Psa. Ix, 6 ; and in cviii, 7. 

We now pass from the HebreAV to the Greek, and still 
examine the meaning of the verb to sanctify. In the 
Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, called the Sep- 
tuagint, dytd^co, hagiazo, is the w^ord used by those learned 
Jewish translators, as designed to give the proper mean- 
ing and rendering of the Hebrew verb iJ'ip. (kadhash,) 
to sanctify^ just quoted. It is thus defined by Rev. John 



172 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



Groves in his " Greek and English Dictionary:'' "Tb co7i- 
secrate, sanctify, separate, or set apart; to esteem or revere 
as holy, or sanctified; to purify, cleanse from pollution; to 
expiate, atone, appease, to halloiv, sanctify, make lioly.^' 
There is no one of these meanings that would indicate 
moral cleansing or purifying. Since he makes no refer- 
ence to any passage of Scripture in this definition, we 
have no reason at all to think that the word means to 
purify morally, simply because he says it signifies to 
cleanse from pollution, to p)urify ; for he may have meant 
ceremonial cleansing. 

It is defined thus by Liddell and Scott's Passow's Greek- 
English Lexicon : " To halloiv, purify, consecrate, of per- 
sons, Septuagint, Ex. xix, 22, in pass. ; New Testament, 
John X, 36, of things. Matt, xxiii, 17 : 2, to cleanse from 
jyollution, purify, Septuagint, Lev. xvi, 19 ; New Testa- 
ment, Heb. ix, 13." These learned and approved authors 
one would suppose to be sufficient. The meanings given 
by all, of consecrating or setting apart to any holy pur- 
pose, of coui'se do not come within the legitimate province 
of our argument. Neither does the definition, to regard or 
revere as holy, which corresponds to the Hebrew Piel, 
No. 1, above given, and is there defined, to hold sacred, 
to regard and treat as holy, spoken of God, of a priest, 
of the Sabbath. For the reference to passages,' please 
see under Piel, No. 1, in the Hebrew definition already 
given. The word is defined by Liddell and Scott, with 
its reference to Lev. xvi, 19, and to Heb. ix, 13, I will 
now examine. Referring to these passages, they say it 
means to cleanse from pollution, purify. The passage reads, 
" And he [the priest] shall sprinkle of the blood upon it 
[the altar] with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and 
hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." 
The Hebrew word which is here translated ''haUow," is 
in the Piel species. Now, please to turn back and look 
^nder Piel No. 3, and you find " to consecrate " given as 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 173 



the definition, under which you will find it spoken of a 
priest, of an altar, a temple, the first-born, etc. You will 
also see a reference to Lev. viii, 15, where it is said, 
" Moses . . . sanctified it [the altar]." Hence, to 
cleanse from pollution, to purify, as given by Liddell and 
Scott, mean no more than to consecrate an altar, since in 
the Septuagint the verb is dyidffsi, liagiasei. As to the 
passage in Hebrews, the words themselves show that the 
apostle had reference to Jewish purifying, since he speaks 
of the " blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an 
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth [a^'ja^et] to the 
purifying of the flesh." It might here be shown further, 
that the verb to sanctify and the noun sanctification occur 
a number of times in the New Testament, neither of which, 
from an impartial exposition, gives us any clear evidence 
of an inward work of grace ; but since these passages will 
all be carefully considered hereafter, we pursue this point 
no further for the present. Anticipating, therefore, our 
conclusion to a future argument, since the Lexicons and 
the passages themselves do not favor what is called entire 
sanctification, the theory seems objectionable, being con- 
trary to the Scriptural meaning of the words. It is true 
the '^sanctification of the spirit^' is mentioned in Scripture, 
and " being sanctified hy the Holy Ghost ;" but what these 
passages really mean, on a fair investigation, is a question 
yet to be settled in the proper place. 

3. Entire sanctification, as it has been taught, may be 
regarded as objectionable, because it involves its friends 
in contradictions as to important consequences. The ques- 
tion has often been asked, " What will become of a man 
if he die in a merely-justified relation before he is wholly 
sanctified?" As to this, it is held that God has begun the 
work of grace in the heart, and he will carry it on till the 
day of full and final redemption ; that if such a man die 
suddenly he will be saved, because God will cut the work 
short in righteousness. This notion is elsewhere charged 



174 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



to Calvinism, whence it has been borrowed. Those who 
adopt the doctrine of complete sanctity, as a distinct work 
from regeneration, hold that when a man is justified and 
reo-enerated sin remains in him still, and that he must be 
wholl}^ sanctified before he can enter into the final heaven 
of God's people. And this being the case, thej must 
surely regard regeneration as insufficient as a work of 
grace in the heart; but if they consider it a sufficient 
preparation for heaven, then the absolute necessity of en- 
tire sanctification, as subsequent, is not perceived. But 
we have never known an advocate of this theory who could 
fully and fairly clear up this consequence connected with 
the subject so as to. honor regeneration as being a suffi- 
cient blessing, and at the same time maintain the absolute 
necessity of another distinct work in the soul. Here we 
will show how Dr. George Peck reconciles this question, 
and then the reader can see for himself. On pages 30 
and 31 of " Christian Perfection . . . Abridged from 
the author's larger work," this language is found setting 
forth the all- sufficiency of regeneration : " It would be 
equally foreign from the views both of St. Paul and Mr. 
Wesley, to speak of those who are not sanctified tulioUy 
as in a state of damning sin; for they are justified and 
born anew, and consequently adopted into God's family. 
And though their sanctification may not be complete, they 
have the promise of eternal life, and of course have the 
pledge of complete sanctification, if they should be cut 
ofi" by death in that state. It is most absurd to suppose 
that a justified soul can be lost, without having forfeited 
his justification by backsliding." Now, here is as strong 
language as can possibly be written in favor of eternal 
salvation through the one blessing of which he speaks — 
'^justified and horn aneiv, and consequently adopted into 
God's family.'' Yea, he even says that ''it is most ab- 
surd to suppose that a justified soul can he lost, ivithout 
having forfeited his justification hy backsliding " Now, 



A;;g. X.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



175 



please turn to the thirty-seventh page of the same book, 
where the author gives Rev. Richard Watson's definition 
of sanctification, as found in his Theological Dictionary, 
and indorses the same. A part of this will suffice, which 
is as follows : " Sanctification in this world must be com- 
plete; the whole nature must be sanctified, all sin must 
be utterly abolished, or the soul can never be aDxMITTed 
INTO THE GLORIOUS PRESENCE OF GoD." Here he is Speak- 
ing of entire sanctification, as subsequent to regeneration, 
and he claims that if it is not complete^ ^ " in this ivorld," 
and all sin utterly abolished,^' the soul " can never be 
admitted into the glorious presence of Grod !" Is this 
question made clear by the Doctor? Is it not virtually 
saying that if a man is merely justified and regenerated, 
he will be saved as such in case of death? and, again, is 
it not virtually saying that if a man is not wholly sanc- 
tified also, that he will not be saved in case he die? Is it 
not a law of our rational nature, that two propositions 
exactly opposed to one another can not both be true ? Is 
not the fact here inevitable, that the present adopted the- 
ory of entire sanctification, as a subsequent work to regen- 
eration, is not only objectionable, but ah solutel j ujitenahle? 

4. A very objectionable feature of the theory in con- 
sideration is not yet fully developed; for it involves its 
advocates in a monstrous absurdity, as to consequences, 
if these be inferred from Dr. Peck's data — virtually es- 
teeming a man a child of God and a child of Satan at the 
same time ! For speaking of those who are merely justi- 
fied and regenerated, and not yet wholly sanctified, the 
Doctor, in the above quotation, says they are justified 
and born aneiv, and consequently adopted iiito God's fam- 
ily. So if they are adopted into God's family, they are 
the children of God; for, to adopt means to take the 
child of another and make it as one's own, and in the 
economy of Divine grace, it is taking the child of the 
wicked one, and, through justification by faith, making 



176 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

him a child of God. Then the Doctor, adopting Mr. 
Watson on sanctification, says all sin must he utterly abol- 
ished^ or the soul can never he admitted into the glorious 
presence of God. But according to his theory, as found 
on page 36, sin is not " utterly abolished " in one merely 
justified, for he says, "The soul is regenerated, but not 
wholly sanctified — sin is subdued, but is not wholly taken 
away — the body of sin is nailed to the cross, but still 
occasionally struggles." Therefore, a justified man '■'can 
not he admitted into the glorious presence of Grod^ But if 
not " admitted," he must be lost ; and if lost, he is not a 
child of God ; and if not a child of God, he must be a 
child of Satan. But we have already proved him to be a 
child of God by means of his justification, because therein 
he was adopted ; hence he is a child of God and a child 
of Satan at the same time ! thou theory of entire 
sanctification, hadst thou come from God thou wouldst be 
consistent ! 

5. The theory in question is objectionable, because the 
Bible no where gives an example of it, as a subsequent 
and distinct blessing from regeneration. I am not un- 
aware of the fact that in this objection I again enter upon 
controverted ground — be it so; this can not be helped. 
Here, on the contrary, necessity is laid upon the writer 
to expose another error in the writings of Dr. Peck. It 
is common, however, as an error, with all who hold to the 
same plan of complete sanctity. What will disprove one 
will virtually disprove all of the same belief. 

Without giving his words verbatim^ it will sufiice to say, 
that on page 228 of his book he gives the names of sev- 
eral persons mentioned in Scripture as instances " of per- 
sons said to be perfect^ blameless, upright," etc., among 
whom he mentions Enoch, Elijah, Daniel, Noah, David, 
Josiah, Zachariah, and Elisabeth. As to these, it may be 
asked. Who can prove that any one of all these persons 
was ever wholly sanctified in the sense of a subsequent 



Arg. X.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



177 



blessing to regeneration? All of these need not be men- 
tioned in opposing arguments. Let a brief notice of the 
facts in the history of Enoch, and of Zachariah, and 
Ehsabeth suffice for all. As to Enoch, it is said, " Enoch 
walked with God . . three hundred years." Now, " to 
walk ivith God'' does not mean to receive a second and 
subsequent blessing to that of regeneration, as some hold 
entire sanctification to be, but it means the keeping of 
the moral law — the observance of all God's holy com- 
mandments, great and small, as the fruit of regeneration. 
The proofs which may be adduced on this declaration are, 
truly, very many, from the plain statements of the Bible, 
and on this alone should we depend; for no man's mere 
ipse dixit in this theological investigation should be taken, 
no odds what his reputation may be. Emphatically, there 
is but one source to wliich we can go for unerring light 
and wisdom on all religious subjects, and that is to the 
Holy Scriptures, "Peck's Rule of Faith," to which we 
presume there can be no valid objection. The writer 
would not impose on the credulity of those who are more 
inclined to take for granted whatever may be found written 
in any book of pious title than to investigate for them- 
selves. The Bible is the sure rock on which the theologian 
may erect his superstructure and feel secure. 

What Ave understand by "walking with God," is plain 
from Psa. cxix, 1, which says, "Blessed are the undefiled 
in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord." The word 
"undefiled" in this quotation is perfect in the Hebrew, 
and this is its radical meaning; for the verb from which 
it is derived, in the Hebrew, signifies, "fo complete, to 
perfect, to finish," besides other similar meanings which I 
need not mention. Moreover, the word " undefiled " is 
translated from the original by the word "perfect," in 
Gen. xvii, 1, where God said to Abraham, "AYalk before 
me, and be thou perfect." And in the margin of our 
reference Bibles the word " undefiled " is marked ''•perfect 



178 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



or sincere J' If we give this word a regular meaning, that 
is, one definition, from which there is likely no need at all 
to depart in any case, since the root means " to perfect,^^ 
consistency requires us to let that one meaning be ''per- 
fect.''^ But we see further, that this perfect man is said 
to be perfect "in the way." The Hebrew word 
dhareh, here translated '^way^^ is thus defined by Gese- 
nius, " A way, that is, course^ mode, manner, in which one 
walks, lives, which one follows ; . . . spoken of men, 
a way or conduct which Jehovah approves, and in which 
men ought to walk." But all the moral precepts of the 
Bible are embraced in what ''Jehovah approves," and they 
constitute the way "in which men ought to walk." The 
word "in" of the text means, in a fuller sense, as to, or 
in respect to, the way. The Psalmist speaks of the man 
perfect as to the way. That is, the respect wherein he is 
perfect is clearly pointed out. That the Bible teaches 
perfection is very plain, but the true sense in which such 
perfection is to be understood, is another question entirely. 
The passage does not say, "Blessed are the perfect" in, 
or as to the heart, but the limitation is, as to the way, as to 
the Divine life, or mode of living. Nor is it to be denied 
that the phrase '•'perfect heart'' can be found about four- 
teen times in our version of the Old Testament, but not 
once in the New, according to Cruden's Condensed Con- 
cordance, but this fact makes no objection, whatever, to 
the views advanced in this work which make perfection 
the outward part of the Christian religion. This will 
appear from several considerations. 

(1.) To the best of our knowledge, those who have writ- 
ten on entire sanctification have never taken one single 
passage of the fourteen as proofs of their theory, and 
should they attempt to do it hereafter, it would only be 
introducing new matter somewhat contrary to the rule of 
a public debate. The fourteen passages referred to are, 
1 Kings viii, 61, xi, 4, xv, 3, xv, 14; 2 Chr. xv, 17; 2 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 179 



Kings XX, 3; Isa. xxxviii, 3; 1 Chr. xii, 38, xxviii, 9, 
xxix, 9, and 19 ; 2 Chr. xvi, 9, xxv, 2 ; Psa. ci, 2. 

(2.) In all these passages — except the last mentioned — 
the original word translated "perfect,"' is u)i'^ shalem; 
and it may be regarded as a somewhat spurious transla- 
tion, so far as the exact point of theology in question is 
concerned ; since (a) those who are much attached to the 
word perfect may give it the idea of inward purity in the 
sense of what they call entire sanctification. (b) The word 
does not mean perfect in the sense purity at all, 
nor does our lexicographer so use it in the place where 
he defines it as applied to the heart. Under his first 
definition he gives ^'wJiole, sound, perfect/^ and applies 
these meanings to ''just weight and measure," Deut. 
xxv, 15 ; and " whole, safe, unharmed, Gen. xxxiii, 18 ; 
of an army, Neh. i, 12;" and 'Huhole stones, that is, not 
hewn, Deut. xxvii, 6." Secondly, he defines it, '■^com- 
pleted, finished, 2 Chr. viii, 16" — spoken of the temple. 
Third, he defines it, " living in peace and friendship, peace- 
ful, friendly — see root in Pual, Hiph'hil, Hopii'hal." 
Just here he quotes several of the fourteen passages 
where the word is applied to the heart. Now, if we 
examine the verbal root of this adjective in the three 
species, as he has directed, we find that he defines it in 
Pual 'Ho he at peace with any one;" in Hiph'hil, ''Ho 
make peace with any one," '"''to make a friend of any 
one;" in Hopii'hal, " become the friend of any one." 
Now, since the root of this adjective contains the idea 
of peace, as shown in these several instances, and since 
the adjective itself is correctly defined, as a branch from 
the root, by the word '^ peaceful this, therefore, must 
be the proper translation of thirteen of the texts. We 
may then, as an example, take 1 Kings viii, 61, and 
translate, "Let your heart therefore be peaceful with 
the Lord our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep 
his commandments." This peaceful heart just agrees 



180 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Paet I. 



witli the doctrine of regeneration as taught by Christ and 
the apostles wherein the soul has peace, and as a fruit of 
that regenerated state constantly exhorted to keep the 
commandments just as in 1 Kings viii, 61. 

Now, a peaceful heart implies a regenerated heart, 
and all these passages come in to teach us no more than 
simply regeneration, and in no way can entire sanctifica- 
tionists claim one of them on critical examination. As to 
the passage in Psa. ci, 2, the word "perfect" is Dn 
tham. This is the last of the fourteen passages referred 
to, and radically it means pejfect, and perhaps more 
nearly approaches the idea of entirety than that of purity , 
since the root DDn, famam, means " to complete, to per- 
fect, to finish,^' in the sense of doing a deed or work, 
as with the hands, and not in the sense of purifying the 
heart by the Holy Spirit, as Josh, v, 8, ''When they 
had done circumcising all the people." Hebrew, -irsn-n'Z/^s 
SiTsnS when perfected all the people to he circum- 

cised. See the marginal note in our reference Bibles on 
this last- quoted passage. So Josh, iv, 1, " When all the peo- 
ple were clean passed over Jordan." Hebrew, " Wlien all 
the people, -rrn, tammu, perfected to pass over the Jordan.^^ 

Compare the Septuagint, ^^e) auveriXeas rvaq 6 Xabq dia^aivmv 
rbv 'Iopddv7]v, when PERFECTED all the people passing over 
the Jordan. And even if this criticism will not suit the 
taste of some, let them adhere to the word perfect, in the 
fourteen instances given, but, then, let them show that a 
regenerated heart, in point of purity, is not perfect. 
With this side issue laid aside, which the objection in 
hand seemed to demand, we return now to the phrase, 
as to the way. This is analogous to the Latin Ablative of 
limitation. If we wish to speak of a man perfect in or 
as to the w^ay, in Latin, we may say perfectus via, or im- 
maculatus via. If we wish to express the same in Greek, 
we may use the Accusative of specification and say, riXeto^ 
rijv 6d6v. This much shows that the perfection spoken of 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



181 



does not consist in an inward work, but it is as to the way, 
or outward life. The passage further says, "Who walk 
in the law of the Lord." The relative pronoun ''who" 
refers to "men" understood, with which the adjective 
"perfect," or as here rendered "undefiled," agrees, or as 
the English scholar would say, " qualifies men understood." 
Therefore, they " Avho walk in the law of the Lord," and 
the perfect " as to the way," are the same, they are in 
grammatical apposition. The verbal translation from the 
Hebrew perhaps stands thus : the blessedness of the per- 
fect AS TO the WAY, THE WALKERS in the laiv of Jehovah. 
So it is said of Enoch that he " walked with God," but a 
walker with God and a man perfect as to the way being 
the same, it follows that Enoch was a perfect man as to the 
way, which perfection was just his keeping the moral law, 
as he had it revealed to him in his day, as the fruit of his 
justified relation. St. Paul has given us a plain account 
of this man : " By faith Enoch was translated ; . . . for 
before his translation he had this testimony, that he 
pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please 
him : for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, 
and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek 
him." The apostle thus says of Enoch: 1. That he 
" pleased God." 2. That he had a testimony of this fact. 
3. That without faith he could not have obtained the Di- 
vine favor. 4. That, virtually, at some time in the life of 
Enoch, before he obtained the Divine favor, he came to 
God, believing in his existence, and that if he would seek 
him diligently he would find him. These four facts are 
credible from the account. But the faith which he exer- 
cised was the term — man's part in the covenant, although 
at that time salvation in the covenant was only in the in- 
tention of God. The several facts that Enoch had access 
to God, implied in the phrase, "walked with God," the 
fact that he had the "testimony," the fact that a comer to 
God must believe in his existence — must believe him to be 



182 



EEYIEW OF TTESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



a " Rewarder " — must believe in seeking him ''diligently" — 
all show that Enoch was justified by faith, and that for 
three hundred years he was perfect as to the keeping of 
the law of God, as a fruit or sign outwardly of the inward 
grace regeneration. Hence it may be fairly denied, both 
now and forever, that Enoch ever received that blessing 
which is called entire sanctification. As to Zacharias and 
Elisabeth, it is said : " They were both righteous before 
God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of 
the Lord blameless." Luke i. 6. Does this passage say 
that they were perfect, or wholly sanctified as such ? The 
word righteous " means just^ as shown in a former argu- 
ment ; it does not mean sanctified, nor does it mean wholly 
sanctified. We might with all propriety translate the text: 
"They were both just before God;" that is, they were 
justified — in a justified relation to God, and like Enoch, 
as above shown, their walking in the commands of God 
blameless, was the fruit of their justified relation and re- 
generated state. No more need be added on this point, 
for these two instances, as examples of what is called 
entire sanctification, are no examples at all ; nor are the 
cases of Noah and David, and a score of others, any bet- 
ter proof, on a fair examination. Therefore, the system 
of perfection, as used in the sense of several writers, is 
objectionable because the Holy Scripture gives no exam- 
ples of it as such. 

6. The doctrine is further objectionable because it lias 
no covenant with conditions and penalties. God made a 
covenant with Abraham, as before mentioned. His own 
part of the condition of that covenant was, that he would 
give his Son as the Savior of the world, and Abraham's 
part in the condition of the same covenant was faith. 
Abraham "believed in the Lord and he counted it to him 
for JUSTIFICATION," and not for an additional blessing, 
and we are to be "blessed with faithful Abraham," if we 
also believe. The blessing in this covenant, as an inward 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 183 

work, does not imply any more than regeneration. This, 
then, is the covenant. The advocates of the system in 
hand say that a man is to be entirely sanctified by faith — 
merely the performing of man's part in the covenant — but 
on God's part in the same covenant they look for more 
than was preached to Abraham — more than God prom- 
ised — more than Christ died for — more than Christ 
preached — indeed, more thait the mind of man can con- 
ceive of ; it is inconceivable, and hence absurd. For one 
party to a covenant to comply with the condition therein, 
and then to expect the other party to it to do more than was 
stipulated for, is extremely unreasonable. Will God do a 
thing at one time that he will not do at another, under 
the same circumstances ? If a man go to God and believe 
to-day, and be justified and regenerated only^ and then 
go to him to-morrow and believe again, can he expect 
more from God than justification and its blessing again as 
before ? Or if he obtain on the second day what some 
call entire sanctification, over and above what he obtained 
the first day, why did God trifle with him on the former 
occasion ? If he believed at first unto justification, then 
he filled his part in the condition of the covenant. If he 
believed the second time, then he did no more, and where 
is the covenant in which God should do more ; or that 
would give us the idea of his doing more than he did at 
first? 

In fact, then, the doctrine of additional purity, as it is 
held, implies a covenant on the part of God having such 
a doctrine in it as entire sanctity, as such, and as the 
Lord's part of the agreement in that covenant. But then, 
since it is said to be by faith that we are to obtain such 
a blessing — granting the blessing to have an existence — 
and since faith is the condition on our part in another 
covenant, namely, the one with Abraham, it is obvious 
that there is a point Avrong somewhere, since the advo- 
cates of this wonderful blessing take the condition of one 



184 KEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



covenant, namely, the Abrahamic, and try to fix it up as 
the condition, virtually, of a supposed covenant which God 
never made, in which they look for entire sanctification 
instead of regeneration. And if on God's part we are to 
look for any thing more than regeneration, then, truly, we 
ought to look for something more on man's part than 
faith in order to obtain this great blessing, and so keep 
the account even. The way in which Dr. Peck, as is ap- 
prehended, would get over this troublesome part of the 
subject is by actually doing something of this sort, or, at 
least, approximating this, as is found in the following 
words concerning faith : " We are sanctified as well as 
justified by faith, and in both instances faith is the same 
in nature. It has respect to the doctrines and facts, to 
the precepts and to the promises of the Gospel. In rela- 
tion to the doctrines and facts it is credence ; in relation to 
the precepts, assent; and in relation to the promises, confi- 
dence. This great difierence between the faith which justi- 
fies and that which sanctifies wholly, is, that the former 
contemplates simple pardon, or the canceling of guilt, 
while the latter respects the destruction of inward sin, 
and the entire restoration of the Divine image."* 

In considering the views contained in this extract, ob- 
serve, first, that the author divides the object of saving 
faith into four parts, namely : doctrines, facts, precepts, 
and promises. Confessedly, it is hard to see how the 
Doctor makes a theological distinction in the meaning of 
these four words, for theologically they must be consid- 
ered, since we both are reasoning on a theological ques- 
tion. Suppose we show that in this sense these four 
words mean one and the same thing, when applied to the 
Gospel in its most comprehensive sense, after all the 
trouble our Doctor has had to invent a foundation for his 
theory. For illustration, or rather demonstration, we take 
the Gospel message as a specimen : " Go ye into all the 

* Christian Perfection Abridged, p. 254. 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



185 



world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that 
helieveth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned.^' Now, this is " doctrines.'^ 
Here is the doctrine of the call to the ministry — of the 
promulgation of the Gospel — of salvation by faith — of 
damnation through unbelief — of Cliristian baptism. But 
it is also facts Here is a recorded fact that Christ 
gave this divine commission, from the Latin facio, to do; 
he actually did it: it is fact that a man is saved by 
faith, because it has been done. The doctrine of baptism 
is a fact, because established, that is, do7ie in the Christian 
Church. These statements are true, for says Worcester, 
defining the word " fact," "A thing done; reality; action; 
deed." 

But the Gospel message is also '■^precepts.'' The same 
English lexicographer thus defines a "precept:" "A rule 
authoritatively given ; a mandate ; a principle ; a direction ; 
a maxim." It comes from the Latin verb prcecipio, which 
Leveritt in part thus defines: " To give rules or precepts to 
any one, to admonish, advise, warn, say, tell; ... of 
teachers, to deliver, teach.'' 

So, according to this, the message is " a rule authorita- 
tively given," etc. — a precept " that ought to ring in 
every man's ear, " He that believeth not shall be damned." 
Etymologically speaking, therefore, we may say that the 
whole message, embracing things "said," "advised," 
" warned," " told," etc., is a body of precepts. Finally, 
the message is "^:>romises." It promises salvation to the 
believer, "He that believeth . . . shall be saved." It 
promises damnation to the unbeliever, " He that believeth 
not shall be damned." What, then, will our Doctor do 
with this ? ^For he trisects faith and says, " In relation 
to the doctrines and facts it is credence.'' But we have 
found the Gospel message to be "doctrines and facts" 
both; hence we must give it credence. He further says, 

" In relation to the precepts, assent," but we have found 

16 



186 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



the message to be precepts hence we must give it as- 
sent. And he says, ''In relation to the promises, co7ifi- 
dencef but we have found the message to be promises, 
hence Ave must give it conjideyice ! Is not this, on the 
part of our Doctor's theory, the merest logomachy con- 
ceivable? What has he made? The whole affair resolves 
itself into this : since the message embraces all four of 
his terms, we must give it severally, credence, assent, and 
confidence, all of which are included in the one conven- 
ient, comprehensive. Biblical word, faith. 

Again : in the above quotation, our Doctor has informed 
us that the "great difference between the faith which 
justifies and that which sanctifies wholly, is, that the 
former contemplates simple pardon or the canceling of 
guilt, while the latter respects the destruction of inward 
sin, and the entire restoration of the Divine image." 
There are, really, some curious things in this statement. 
A lack of intellectual capacity to comprehend them is 
confessed. If the justifying faith contemplates simple 
pardon or the canceling of guilt, while the sanctifying 
faith respects the destruction of imoard sin and the entire 
7'estoration of the Divine image, it follows, then, that every 
one who is simply pardoned does not even receive the 
blessing of regeneration at the same moment ; for we un- 
derstand " simple pardon or the canceling of guilt " to 
imply no more than what Rev. Richard Watson means, 
when speaking of justification, the synonym of Dr. 
Peck's " simple pardon," that it is an act of GoD done 
FOR man, and IN HIS FAVOR.* And writers on entire 
sanctification hold, that, after one is regenerated, it may 
be years before he may be wholly sanctified; because, as 
yet, he is not supposed to exercise the sanctifying faith. 
But they hold, also, that the moment a soul is justified, it 
is that moment also regenerated; but this implies far more 
than simple pardon or the canceling of guilt. 

* Watson's Theological Dictionary, Article Justification. 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 187 



One of two things, therefore, awaits the theory of Dr. 
Peck; either it must take back the expression, The faith 
which justifies . . . contemplates simple pardon or the 
canceling of guilty or it must give up what it says on the 
thirtieth page of his book in these words : " Justification 
implies pardon. But simultaneously with the sinner's be- 
ing taken into favor, he is born again, or regenerated. 
This is a real change wrought in the soul hy the Spirit 
OF God." The Doctor's faith . . . ivhich sanctifies 
ivholly^^ can never procure to the soul any greater change 
than his justifying faith, according to this declaration. Here 
he has said all that any one can say of a full and complete 
internal work of grace. Or there is one alternative re- 
maining, and even in it there is not much consolation for 
the theory; namely, to suppose that the justifying and 
sanctifying faith are both exercised the same moment of 
the justification and regeneration of every soul. How 
can it be otherwise, when he says these acts are done 
" simultaneously," and when we have abundantly proved, 
in former arguments, that regeneration is every conceiv- 
able qualification to a soul that any one can claim, or ever 
has claimed, the so-called entire sanctification to be ? And 
if they are exercised at the same moment, then they are 
one, for the human mind is incapable of acting with two 
intensities at the same moment ; and if exercised in the 
same moment, they are only one and not two faiths ; hence 
the theory is exploded. There is only " one Lord, one 
FAITH, ONE baptism." But the Doctor seems to speak of 
two faiths ; one he calls " tliat which justifies^'' the other 
'•^that which sanctifies ivholly and these are so distinct in 
his mind, that there is a great difference hetween^^ them. 
All this implies two faiths and two spiritual baptisms ; 
for if there is such an odds between the faiths, the same 
great difference is to be supposed between the baptisms, 
which difference he and others actually make ; for the bap- 
tism which merely regenerates, of the Holy Ghost, is said 



188 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



to leave sin still in the soul, and the baptism of the same 
Holy Ghost which sanctifies wholly, is said to destroy all sin ! 
There is, therefore, only one covenant, and one term is all 
that can be found therein as man's duty, and that is faith; 
it has but one term on God's part, as a spiritual blessing, 
and that is regeneration. Therefore, entire sanctification 
may be regarded as objectionable till a man is found who 
can show a covenant in which God has promised, on his 
own part, to grant it to men on some condition of supe- 
rior faith of "great difference" from that which is to be 
exercised by the " seed of Abraham." For, surely, those 
who have written on salvation by faith, would have added 
better to good had they written on salvation by faith in 
THE COVENANT, which grace is always called justification, 
and not entire sanctification. 

7. The doctrine, moreover, has no evidences distinct from 
regeneration, and is therefore objectionable. Dr. Peck has 
tried to give some evidences of entire sanctification. He 
says, " I shall now proceed to present what I consider sat- 
isfactory evidence of a state of entire sanctification. (1.) 
The witness of the Spirit — the testimony of God's Spirit 
that the soul is entirely sanctified."^ Not much is required 
to be said on this point, for our Doctor does not give us 
an evidence of sanctification, as he held it, where he men- 
tions the witness of the Spirit; but he presents a proof 
of regeneration only. One or two passages will prove 
this. It is admitted, that if the doctrine of regeneration 
is any where taught in the Bible, that place is the fifth 
chapter of Romans, where the apostle concludes his argu- 
ment on justification by faith, saying, " Therefore being 
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ." Here is " peace '^ produced in the 
soul, which all acknowledge to be done by the Holy Spirit. 
But the apostle goes on speaking eloquently of the re- 
sults arising from this justified relation, among which he 

* Perfection Abridged, p, 295. 



Abg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



189 



mentions "hope," and says, "It maketh not ashamed; 
because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by 
THE Holy Ghost which is given unto us." Hence, the 
Holy Ghost is the evidence of the justified relation and 
regenerated state according to St. Paul. Our Doctor, 
however, makes it an evidence of a greater blessing than 
that of regeneration ! Now, even if he admits that the 
soul has the witness of the Spirit when it is justified, and 
it is presumed that he does this, since he holds that si- 
multaneously with justification one is born of the Spirit, 
Avhat force is there in his proof, since it is a mark of an- 
other blessing entirely different, as to time and degree, 
from what he says it is? If one is regenerated to-day, 
and has the witness of the Spirit, and should be blessed 
to-morrow ever so intensely, and receive the very same 
witness that he received on the previous day, what right 
has he to suppose it to be a testimony of a difi'erent and 
distinct work from that of the day before ? Does an 
overwhelming amount of evidence in proof of a given fact 
necessarily intensify that fact, especially when intensity is 
inconceivable? If A killed and the fact is strongly 
presumed from certain circumstantial evidence, fully cor- 
roborated by the testimony of C, does the fact of murder 
become any 7aore than murder by the concordant testi- 
mony of D, and When we are regenerated, we 
are then born of the Spirit. The Spirit then bears wit- 
ness to a certain fact, namely, " that we are the children 
of God." Can our better judgment, granting the possi- 
bility of the so-called Christian perfection, admit of the 
Spirit witnessing any thing more than our sonship ? Now, 
to make the witness of the Spirit a proof of entire sanc- 
tification, instead of a proof of regeneration, is false, as 
truths admitted will show. For, (1.) The witness of the 
Spirit is a result based on adoption, and not on entire 
sanctification so-called. (2.) Adoption is a concomitant 
of justification and regeneration, and not of entire sanctity. 



190 



REA'IEW OE WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



Both these facts the reader ^'ill gather from t^YO kinds of 
proof which we will give, {a) Scripture: ''Because ye 
are soxs, God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into 
YOUR hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Gal. iv, 6. (h) 
The testimony of entire perfectionists themselves. Mr. 
Watson says "the leading blessings concomitant with 
justification are regeneration and adoption; with re- 
spect to which we may observe generally, that although 
we must distinguish them as being different from each 
other, and from justification, yet they are not to be 
separated. They occur at the same time, and they all 
enter into the experience of the same person ; so that no 
man is justified without being regenerated and adopted, 
and no man is regenerated and made a son of God who is 
not justified."^ ^gain, speaking of adoption, he says, 
"To this state belong freedom from a servile spirit; we 
are not servants but sons ; the special love and care of 
God our Heavenly Father ; a filial confidence in him ; free 
access to him at all times and in all circumstances ; and 
THE Spirit of adoption, or the witness of the Spirit to 
OUR ADOPTION, which is the foundation of all the comfort 
we can derive from those privileges, as it is the only^ 
means by which we can know that they' are ours."t 

Of those merely justified. Dr. Peck says, "They are 
justified and born anew, and consequently adopted into 
God's family."! Therefore, it is false and weak, in view 
of these extracts, to make the tvitness of the Spirit rest 
on entire sanctification, when such writers themselves rest 
it on adoption^ as also the apostle, and ground this last 
on mere justification and regeneration. Dr. Peck gives 
a second evidence of complete sanctity, in these words : 

" 2. The inward testimony must be accompanied by a 
consciousness of victory over sin. The body, of sin be- 
ing destroyed, none of its motions must remain."§ It has 

* Theological Institutes, chap. xxiv. f lb. 

t Christian Perfection Abridged, p. 31. § Perfection, p. 297. 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



191 



been proved, we think, sufficiently, in former arguments, 
that Avhen the soul is justified and regenerated, it is fr<3e 
from sin. This is the teaching of Rom. vi, 7. On this 
passage Dr. Adam Clarke makes two statements, and he 
an advocate of complete sanctification so held, which will 
forever seal this point against the opinion of Dr. Peck. 
He says, first, that the apostle is speaking of justification ; 
secondly, that it includes all that is implied in entire 
sanctification. His note is as follows : A^d'.y.aiwrai, liter- 
ally, is justified from sin ; or is freed or delivered from it. 
Does not this simply mean, that the man who has received 
Christ Jesus by faith, and has been, through believing, 
made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, has had his old man, 
all his evil propensities destroyed; so that he is not only 
justified freely from all sin, but wholly sanctified to 
God? The context shows that this is the meaning." 

Here, then, is a confession that the blessing received 
simultaneously with justification, is as great as entire 
sanctification can be, for he says they are one. And if so, 
if there is ''a conscious victory over sin," with one who 
has been wholly sanctified, then the justified man has the 
very same thing. Therefore, this is also an evidence of 
justification, and the second blessing, as such, has, as to 
this, no proof apart from justification, and, therefore, is 
objectionable. Dr. Peck's third proof of entire sanctifica- 
tion is as follows : 

" 3. Another evidence of this high and holy state is a 
deep and constant current of love flowing out toward God 
and all mankind."^ Here the Doctor is again giving us 
the evidence of regeneration for that of entire sanctifica.- 
tion. I find in Scripture this language : The end of the 
commandment is charity [ayd-ri, love] out of a pure heart, 
and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned."f The 
meaning of this passage seems to be, that the sum of all 
that God has commanded man to do, is to love God 

* Christian Perfection, p. 298. ■\l Tim. i, 5. 



192 



REVIEW OF AYESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



supremely, and his neighbor as himself. But this love is 
to be out of a pure heart ; but when the heart is regen- 
erated it is pure, being, as Mr. Watson says, "ik the 
moral image of God.^'^ Therefore, love is the evidence 
of the regenerated state only, as opposed to its being a 
proof of our author's " high and holy state.'' 

Again, the whole of the second chapter of St. James 
is designed to show this very thing in dispute; namely, 
that love is the fruit of the justified relation, and conse- 
quently the evidence of regeneration, which is the con- 
comitant thereof. Now, to say that love is an evidence 
of a second blessing in the soul, when in reality it is a 
proof of the new birth merely, is nothing else than beg- 
ging the question, as in the former instances. But this 
is just the way with the writers on this singular doctrine. 
All they have to say about it, from beginning to end, is 
borrowed ; for there is not one word of Divine authority for 
it between the lids of the Bible ; and to make this avowal 
good, we promise the reader to successfully take away, 
by fair arguments, in the proper place, every text of any 
apparent worth, as a proof-text, in favor of it, as claimed 
by its friends, wherever found in Scripture. The Doctor 
advances a fourth evidence of his views, more remarkable 
than any of those already given. He says : 

"4. Perfect submission to the will of God is a state 
of mind which will always accompany entire sanctifica- 
tion. The perfect Christian will have no will of his 
own. The will of God will be both his rule and his de- 
light. When he knows this, though it may require him 
to make sacrifices, or to endure hardships, unexpected and 
unparalleled, he says, ^Thy will be done.' All his mo- 
tives and actions must be in accordance with the revealed 
will of God, so far as he is capable of understanding 
what that is. The father of the faithful was required to 
offer up his beloved son, Isaac, as a sacrifice upon one 

* Theological Dictionary, Article Regeneration. 



Arc. X.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



193 



of the mountains of Moriah. And though a more costly 
sacrifice could not have been demanded of him, he in- 
stantly said, Isaac must be given up ! This was a great 
effort of faith, and perhaps an unparalleled instance of 
submission."* Two ideas in this quotation may be ob- 
served: 1. The author gives perfect submission to God as 
an evidence of entire sanctification. 2. He presents the 
fact of Abraham offering up his son, Isaac, as a proof and 
illustration of the same doctrine. 

There is perhaps some oversight manifested in this 
view of the facts in the case, on the part of the Doctor, 
which will show the helplessness of his theory, if this be 
the evidence on which it must rest. On an examination 
of the history before us, we have apostolic authority for 
saying that Abraham offered up Isaac as a test or fruit 
of justification, and not of entire sanctification. In the 
second chapter of the Epistle of St. James, the apostle 
argues that a live Christian should keep the moral law, 
the sum of which is love. Rom. xiii, 8. He says : " Ye 
do well if ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scrip- 
ture." He shows that, in fulfilling this law, we should 
help a brother or sister naked and destitute of daily 
food." He further shows that one professing Christianity 
may say to those who are "naked and destitute of daily 
food," "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; not- 
withstanding ye give them not those things which are 
needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, 
if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man 
may say. Thou hast faith, and I have works : shew me 
thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my 
faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God : 
thou doest well : the devils also believe and tremble. But 
wilt thou know, vain man, that faith without works is 
dead?" Then the apostle proceeds to illustrate and to 
prove his teaching by a reference to the account of Abra- 

* Christian' Perfection, p. 301, 
17 



194 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



ham, saying, "Was not Abraham our father justified by 
works [twenty-five years, about, after he had been justi- 
fied by faith, in the sense of pardon, as St. Paul says, 
' Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision '] when he 
offered his son Isaac upon the altar? Seest thou how 
faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith 
made perfect ? And the Scripture was fulfilled, which 
saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto 
him for righteousness, [dty.aioffuvriv^ justification-^ and he 
was called the friend of God. Ye see, then, how that by 
works a man is justified, and not by faith only." 

Now, St. James, in this passage, teaches that when 
Abraham offered up Isaac he fulfilled a certain passage 
of Scripture. The question now is, was that passage, 
thus fulfilled, one pertaining to justification or to what is 
called entire sanctification ? If to the latter, then Dr. 
Peck is correct in making the sacrifice of Isaac an evi- 
dence of entire sanctification. But since the apostle 
designates the very passage, which was fulfilled, by quot- 
ing it, saying that it was that which says, "Abraham 
believed God and it was counted unto him for justifica- 
tion," it is manifest that Dr. Peck is incorrect, and that 
the instance in hand is a test of justification, and not of a 
greater and second blessing. It teaches us likewise that 
St. James recognized Abraham as a justified, and not as 
a ivholly sanctified, man twenty-five years after he was 
first pardoned : and if the " father of the faithful " lived 
for twenty-five years as justified only, forsooth some of 
his children, in the latter days of improvement and refine- 
ment in theology, somewhat outstrip their venerable father, 
when, perhaps simultaneously with the new birth, they 
profess this great blessing, or at least obtain it in a much 
less time than a quarter of a century ! This view of the 
subject, however, is in good keeping with the present age, 
when children so far surpass their parents in point of 
knowledge. Besides this, Dr. Peck's view, respecting 



Arc. X.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



195 



Isaac, is contrary to the established writers of our Church, 
although himself is acknowledged authority. The tenth 
" Article of Religion," as found in our Discipline, is " op 
GOOD WORKS." This is its caption. Its words are as fol- 
lows : Although good works, which are the fruits of faith 
and follow after justification, can not put away our 
sins, and endure the severity of God's judgments ; yet 
are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and 
spring from a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them 
a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is dis- 
cerned by its fruit." Now, the offering up of Isaac is 
introduced by St. James for the purpose of showing that 
good works must grow out of faith, as the fruit of that 
faith, as the evidence of it. But the " Article of Religion " 
just quoted, gives good works as they " follow after justi- 
fication," and not as folloAving after Christian perfection, 
so-called. Therefore, this act of Abraham, by this "Ar- 
ticle of Religion," is regarded as the fruit and proof of 
justification. 

I will now quote Mr. John Wesley's Note on the sen- 
tence, " Was not Abraham justified hy works,'' in which 
he is as clear as a sunbeam, and his correctness is be- 
yond dispute ; he says : " St. Paul sa3^s he was justified 
by faith. Rom. iv, 2, etc. Yet St. James does not con- 
tradict him, for he does not speak of the same justifica- 
tion. St. Paul speaks of that which Abraham received 
many years before Isaac was born — Gen. xv, 6; St. James 
of that which he did not receive till he had offered up 
Isaac on the altan He was justified, therefore, in St. 
Paul's sense, that is, accounted righteous, by faith ante- 
cedent to his works. He was justified in St. James's 
sense, that is, made righteous, by works subsequent to 
his faith. So that St. James's justification by works is 
the fruit of St. Paul's justification by faith." Here 
Mr. Wesley says that the offering up of Isaac is the fruit 
of justification, and not that of entire sanctification. 



196 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



Therefore, Dr. Peck is at variance with Mr. Wesley. But 
he is equally at variance with Rev. Richard Watson, who 
treats the case of Isaac at considerable length. We will 
quote him briefly : " The only sense, then, in which St. 
James can take the term justification, when he says that 
Abraham was 'justified by works, when he had offered 
Isaac his son upon the altar,' is, that his works mani- 
fested or proved that he was justified by faith, or, in 
other words, that his faith, by which he was justified, was 
not dead and inoperative, but living and active. This is 
abundantly confirmed by what follows. So far is St. 
James from denying that Abraham was justified by the 
imputation of his faith for righteousness, long before he 
ofi'ered up his son Isaac, that he expressly allows it by 
quoting the passage — Gen. xv, 6 — in which this is said 
to have taken place at least twenty-five years before, and 
Tie makes use of his subsequent works in the argument^ ex- 
pressly to illustrate the vital and obedient nature of the 
faith by which he was at first justified."* 

Now, since Dr. Peck refers to the off'ering up of Isaac 
as an instance of that " submission " to God which char- 
acterizes entire sanctification, his argument must be pro- 
nounced contrary, also, to Mr. Watson, the standard 
author. It may be regarded, further, as contrary to Scrip- 
ture in at least two other respects. (1.) It remains to be 
proved that even Abraham was wholly sanctified, as a 
second work; and the facts that St. James speaks of his 
act respecting Isaac as the work of a justified man, and 
not as one wholly sanctified, and that, too, as Mr. Watson 
says, " at least twenty-five years " after he received par- 
don, and since this is given to us as an example that we 
should bring forth similar fruits of our justification, the 
presumption is tantamount to demonstration that there are 
no such works taught in the Bible as those which are the 
fruit of entire sanctification. As we would reason by fair 

* Institutes, Vol. ii, chap, xxiii. 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



197 



induction on natural things, so we may do here. St. 
James, Mr. Wesley, and Mr. Watson are clear in making 
Abraham's act the fruit of justification hy faith. But the 
act was obedience to God. Therefore, all acts of obedi- 
ence to God, we may say by induction, on the part of the 
justified, are the fruits of their justification. (2.) Any 
convenient passage elsewhere will show this, and so make 
him contrary to St. Paul as well as St. James : " Being 
then made free from sin, [by justification according to 
the passage and also according to Dr. Adam Clarke,] ye 
became servants to righteousness \_ justification^.^ ^ Bom. 
vi, 18. 

5. A fifth evidence Dr. Peck gives of his theory in 
these words : ^' Those who are made perfect in love will 
feel entire and unwavering confidence in God. Storms 
may gather over the heads of the fully sanctified, dan- 
gers may threaten them, tempests of adversity may act- 
ually break upon them — they may see no way of escape; 
but though not able to walk by sight they can walk by 
faith, and so they are not moved. St. J ohn says, ' There is 
no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because 
^ fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect 
in love.' 1 John iv, 18."* While the Doctor has here 
said several good things in speaking of entire sanctifica- 
tion, it may be easily proved that all this may be affirmed 
most positively as a proof of the justified relation, and, 
consequently, they are of no use to his argument. The 
quotation which he has given from St. John may be re- 
garded as strong proof of that for which it was written ; 
but we find just as strong language used by St. Paul, in 
Bom. V, 1-5, where he is acknowledged by all, even by 
the Doctor and his compeers in theory, to be speaking of 
justification. 

After saying, Being justified by faith we have peace 
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," he goes on 

-Christian Perfection, pp. 301, 302. 



198 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



giving the glorious results of this saved relation, and says 
far stronger things about it than Dr. Peck has said about 
the " unwavering confidence " of the "wholly sanctified. 
For he says we have " access " to God, that we " stand 
in grace," that we " rejoice in hope." And to show the 
vast difference between an uninspired man on entire sanc- 
tification, and an inspired apostle on justification, let us 
behold the contrast. Speaking of the adversity through 
which the wholly sanctified are called to pass, the best 
that the Doctor says is, " They may see no way of escape; 
but though not able to walk by sights they can walk by 
faith, and so they are not moved." 

But the apostle in animated and lofty climax exclaims, 
" And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also ; 
knowing that tribulation worketh patience ; and patience, 
experience ; and experience, hope ; and hope maketh not 
ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our 
hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." The 
Doctor further quotes St. John where he says, "There is 
no fear in love." But we have just read in Paul about 
LOVE being shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost, 
as a result of justification, and John says, " There is NO 
fear in love." Therefore, there is no fear in the regen- 
erated state. Since, therefore, this is so, what force is 
there in an arorument which brino;s in freedom from fear 
as the proof of a wholly- sanctified state ? 

The candid reader is left to decide whether the justified 
relation is not as free from the slavish fear of sin as it is 
conceivable to be, when we compare the two apostles 
together. For John, in the abstract, gives a result of a 
certain state of grace ; Paul gives the same result, in 
substance, and expressly sets it forth as growing out of 
the merely regenerated state as consequent on justification. 

Moreover, the Doctor has misapplied St. Paul's words ; 
for he says the wholly sanctified can walk hy faith,^' 
but Paul says, " We walk by faith," 2 Cor. v, 7, that is, 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 199 

the justified and not the wholly sanctified live and walk by 
faith. 

8. Another objection to the doctrine in hand is, that 
its advocates, from the nature of the case, must neces- 
sarily underrate, or carelessly neglect the proper meaning 
and force of the terms used in Scripture to express the 
relation which a justified soul sustains to God. 

(a) We will first consider the term regeneration. This 
is the work that is wrought in every soul that is justified. 
The Greek w^ord answering to this — a form of which is 
found in Titus iii, 5 — is TzaXtyye^arrta, palingenesia. This 
word is compounded of (j^alin,) again, and yiveaiq^ 

(genesis,) production, generation, or hirtli. It thus means 
a production again, a generation again, or a birth again. 
The English word " regeneration " is wholly of Latin 
origin, being compounded similarly to the Greek, as above 
given, from the Latin re, an inseparable particle which 
means again, and the verb genero, to beget, to produce, to 
generate, etc. From this view, the word is the same as 
in the Greek, in sense, since it means to produce again, to 
beget again, or to generate again. The work of the Holy 
Spirit, therefore, which takes place in the heart, the same 
^ moment one is justified, is called a generation, or a re- 
production. Now, the question naturally arises. If this 
work is called generation, or generation a second time, 
when was the generation or moral production the first time ? 
In what did the first generation or production consist? 
A second creation not only implies a first, to which it is 
made second, but in this case it also supposes a sameness 
in nature to that first. We can not think that the former 
consisted in the birth of the earthly parent — the natural 
birth, for two reasons. (1.) The merely natural birth is 
one of TOTAL depravity; we are born in sin. But the 
second birth, or birth of the Spirit, is one w^hereby we 
are made into the moral image of God. The sameness 
in nature, in respect to these is wholly wanting, and, 



200 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part I. 



therefore, the so-called regeneration or second birth can 
not be second to the birth of the flesh as the first. 
(2.) Regeneration is every-where in Scripture contrasted 
with the completely-depraved state of the soul occasioned 
by the Fall, and perhaps never ^vith the natural birth. It 
is never made second to the natural birth. The strongest 
points of contrast between the two are found in the words 
flesh and spirit, which are used for the natural and spirit- 
ual man respectively; as Rom. viii, 5, "They that are 
after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh : but 
they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." 
And the next verse explains this, using the same contrast, 
but in other words and all connected by the causative 
conjunction. Verbally it reads thus : For the thought of 
ihe FLESH is death; hut the thought of the Spirit is life 
and peace. 

The doctrine is plainly taught that the Scripture hath 
concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of 
Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe," Gal. 
iii, 22. Any one can see that in the first clause of this 
text, which is here given as an example in general, the 
Jioctrine of total depravity is clearly taught, and that, as 
opposed to this, the doctrine of regeneration is taught in 
the words of the second clause. The answer, therefore, 
to the question, as to what the first birth or generation 
consisted in, is found in the history of the creation of 
man : " In the image of God created he him." Gen. i, 27. 

This " image," in one respect, at least, consisted in a 
moral nature similar to that of God himself, and it is so 
acknowledged and interpreted by theological writers gen- 
erally. God at that time generated man as a moral being 
in his own "image," and so produced him, or caused him 
to be. Now, morally, man originally was as pure and as 
spotless as God his Maker, because he was generated or 
produced in the very "imagei' and "likeness" of God. 
The first creation, then, of the moral man, that is to say, 



Arg. X.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



201 



the first generation, the first begetting of him, or the 
first production of him, take whichsoever of the expres- 
sions we please, did not, and could not have fallen short 
of the perfect. Divine image. No sound theologian ever 
thought of denying this. No one would so dare to blas- 
pheme the Creator as to say that there was the least 
lack, morally, found in the heart of man originally, 
whereby he would have failed in being a perfect likeness 
of his Creator. But man fell and became utterly de- 
praved, through an entire loss of that Divine " image " 
in which he was at first made. In this condition the 
whole human family was left " without God and without 
hope in the world;" "in Adam all died." Yet from this 
state of total ruin, God, through his great love wherewith 
he loved us, redeemed us, sending his only-begotten Son 
to redeem the world, in order that the Divine image might 
be restored to such as would receive the profi*ered mercy 
on the condition which God proposed, merely faith in his 
Son. This was the final end of the atonement, " That 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life." All the benefits of redemption, so far 
as it respects a blessing to the human soul, are to be had 
and enjoyed through faith only, while the unbeliever, as 
long as he remains such, abides in sin under the curse of 
^the Eall. But this " everlasting life," to which we have 
just referred, as taking place in the heart of the believer, 
and as the final end, to a great degree, of the atonement, 
was designed to fully counteract the loss and ruin of the 
Fall, and to triumph over it by restoring the Divine like- 
ness to the soul which was lost in the Eall. 

If the Atonement has fallen short of this complete 
restoration of the Divine image, when applied to the 
heart by faith, it would have been inadequate to the de- 
sign of its great Author. This restoration of God's own 
image in the soul is called re-generation. But why is it 
so called ? Why would it not do just as well to call it 



202 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



generation, omitting the prefix re entirely ? The reason 
is ohvious, that such would not do to convey the sense 
of Divine inspiration. For, as man had been generated 
by the power of God in the beginning, with his Maker's 
moral image impressed upon his soul, the object of the 
atonement, when applied by faith, is to generate him 
again; that is, over again, a second time, by restoring the 
lost image of God in his soul. This is regeneration. 
This is why the prefix re is put to the word. Since, 
therefore, the friends of entire sanctification themselves 
confess, that in the beginning when God created man, he 
created, generated, or caused him to be in his own moral 
image, and that this image was a perfect likeness of God, 
absolutely sinless, what right have such to hold, that in 
the re-generation, in the re-production of the spiritual 
man, by means of a gracious atonement, which is in it- 
self a full indemnity against the curse of the Fall, the 
soul is not FULLY restored, but is yet in part under the 
influence of sin, sin being only stunned in it, and not 
wholly destroyed ? Dr. Peck says, " The body of sin is 
nailed to the cross, but still occasionally struggles.''^ 

Bishop Hedding, in a sermon, says, "The degree of 
original sin which remains in SOME believers, though not 
a transgression of a known law, is nevertheless sin, and 
must be removed before one can go to heaven; and the 
removal of this evil is what w^e mean by full sanctifica- 
tion. . . . That a soul newly born of God needs a fur- 
ther SANCTIFICATION is evident from the whole current 
of the writings of the apostles." Mr. Wesley says, 
"Yet sin remains in him, yea, the seed of all sin, till he 
is sanctified throughout."f Mr. Watson says, " In this 
regenerate . . . state, the former corruptions of the heart 
may remain, and strive for the mastery."J Bishop Ham- 
line says, "Regeneration ... is a mixed moral state."§ 

* Perfection, p. 36. f Plain Account, p. 48. 

i Institutes, Voh ii, chap. xxiv. § Tract : " What is it to be Holy?" 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



203 



If a perfect image of God is denied in Avliat is called re- 
generation, why not deny the perfect image in the original 
generation? I am somewhat persistent on this question, 
because it is presumable that men ivholly sanctified, as 
such, ought to be consistent. But where is the consist- 
ency in holding that the perfect image of God was the 
likeness in which man was at first generated, and of dis- 
owning it as being restored to him when he has the ben- 
efit of the all-sufiicient atonement applied to his soul, 
which was designed to remove the Avhole of sin and all its 
power over the soul, which benefit is called, and which is 

generation? This vicAV of the subject does not rest on 
the force of the prefix re, exclusively, but it really rests 
on the theological fact that man, by nature, is totally de- 
praved, and that he has a full deliverance in the atone- 
ment, when personally applied, which application can only 
be made, by that faith which procures justification, and the 
simultaneous act of regenerating the soul by the " Holy 
Ghost shed abroad in the heart." 

Those who hold to a second blessing absolutely necessary 
and subsequent to regeneration, must, therefore, in order to 
save themselves from the force of this objection, fly to one 
or the other of the following subterfuges : either, 1. Deny 
man's original creation in the Divine image, or, 2. Deny 
the restoration of that image completely in the soul of one 
who is regenerated. The first position would be contrary 
to the Mosaic account of the creation, and, indeed, to all 
orthodox views on the subject. The second alternative 
would be contrary to all the received definitions of our 
writers who have attempted to define the word regenera- 
tion; for they substantially say, that it is a w^ork of the. 
Holy Spirit whereby the Divine " image " is restored to 
the soul. Mr. Watson says, " The change in regenera- ^ 
tion consists in the recovery of the moral image of God 
upon the heart."* And if any one can reconcile this 

* Theological Dictionary, Article Regeneration. 



204 REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 

definition with the statements above given, as to sin in 
the regenerate soul, he is able to do what we confess to 
be beyond our comprehension. Or, 3. They must show 
that the position herein taken is wrong, in which regener- 
ation is made second to the original moral nature of 
man. It can not be said that " Adamic perfection " is 
here taught, in such a sense as to make an objection 
against us. For, what perfections Adam had, before he 
fell, this does not presume to say, any further than the 
revealed fact, that his soul was created in the " image " 
of God. This I mean, in point of j:>wr%, my argument 
does not require the word "image" to have any further 
extension. And, when a soul is regenerated, as Mr. Wat- 
son says, " The recovery of the moral image of God upon 
the heart^' is then made; and if the recovered image of 
God has sin in it, as entire sanctificationists actually al- 
low us to infer from their statements, then the moral im- 
age at first had sin in it, antecedent to the act of trans- 
gression. This is virtually attributing sin to the Divine 
image! These difficulties may all be avoided, if it be 
granted that regeneration, as long as it reigns in the soul, 
is a work of the Holy Spirit, which absolutely destroys 
all inward sin, root and branch, leaving nothing whatever 
for the supposed work of entire sanctification to do. How 
it is that some argue the necessity and possibility of any 
more than this being done in the soul, by an additional 
blessing, is really a mystery to the mind. It seems as 
incredible, as inconceivable, and as unphilosophical as to 
suppose two bodies to occupy the same space at once. 
Hence the theory, as such, is objectionable, because, to 
all appearance, very conflicting, and because the word re- 
generation has been overlooked in its etymological and 
theological sense. 

(h) Similar to the word " regeneration " is the phrase 
" born of the Spirit." John iii, 6. The word here trans- 
lated "born," in the original, is the perfect passive par- 



Arc. X.] 



JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



205 



ticiple of the verb ^ewaw, (gennao,) to heget^ to generate, 
etc., and in the passive form, as in the place cited, it 
means begotten, generated, horn, or produced. All this is 
said to be " of the Spirit," and elsewhere " of God." 
Now, the language thus employed is used in a sense 
somewhat figurative, and not a little natural, character- 
izing the earthly procreator, and indicating that relation 
which we call father. And since that which is horn, hegot- 
ten, or generated by the earthly parent, w^hether in the hu- 
man or brute creation, is " after its kind," partaking of 
the very nature of the parent ; if a brute, in the brutish 
"image" of the parent; if a human being, morally the 
child is in the depraved and sinful image of the father ; 
so is it when one is born of the Spirit of God. As in the 
natural birth he partakes of the nature of the father, so 
in the spiritual regeneration or begetting he participates 
the exact image of God who hath begotten him. There- 
fore, if the Almighty ever performs an act upon the soul 
while in the body, as a prerequisite to eternal glory, in 
which he kills sin absolutely, that act is regeneration. It 
is when he, by his Holy Spirit, begets a son in his own 
" likeness," in his own " image." This is what our Lord 
meant when he said, " That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit;" as 
if he had said, " that which is born of the earthly parent 
is morally like him, and that which is born of God is mor- 
ally like God." Therefore, the phraseology under consid- 
eration teaches the same doctrine as contended for under 
the word "regeneration;" that is to say, one born of the 
Spirit as much partakes of the moral nature thereof, as to 
exactness, as a child of earth, born of the flesh, does of 
the fallen nature of the earthly in the same particular. 
And it would be just as good theology, much more sensible, 
and would strain the figure just as little, to say that the 
child of earth, born of the most degraded and wicked par- 
ents, is in part, only, a fallen and sinful child, and not 



206 



EE VIEW OF WESLETAN PEEFECTION. [Part I. 



totally so, as to say that one, on the other hand, bom of 
God is not a full partaker of the very image of God. 

This word of Scripture really means something, or an 
all- wise Being never would have used it to convey his will 
to man. God has always used every-day language through 
his inspired servants to make man wise unto salvation. 
He is "a Spirit;" and yet, to convey to us the idea that he 
sees, we read of ''the eye of the Lord;" to give us the 
idea of strength, we read of his "arm;" yet we do not 
suppose that he has a body, and that it is somewhere lo- 
cated. He calls himself a " shield," to convey to us the 
fact that he is a Protector of his people. In all these 
instances he uses words in their every-day sense, or in 
some way connected with common usage among men. 
Now, if Christ did not use the word ye^^udw, gennao, above 
defined, in this accustomed sense, exactly as men do, and 
bearing all the common-sense force of the term, then, 
verily, he used language calculated to deceive, and to 
cause us to draw erroneous inferences. St. Peter used the 
same word, compounded with dva, (ana,) again, when he 
spoke of the "Father," that he hath begotten us again f 
and that this work in their souls was sufficient for their 
salvation, is shown, because it was unto " a lively hope," 
"to an inheritance incorruptible," etc. Therefore, the 
theory in hand, in view of the analogical meaning of our 
phrase, must be regarded as objectionable, because our 
common-sense can see no force in a plea for it, nor use 
for such a blessing, when regeneration, as the phrases 
"born," "begotten," etc., imply, covers the whole ground, 
and answers every purpose for the purity of the soul, 
according to the fair interpretation of Scripture. We 
would respectfully suggest that entire sanctificationists do 
not overlook the force of such expressions. 

(c) The expression, " You hath he quickened ^vho were 
dead in trespasses and sins," imports a similar or the 
same doctrine. Observe the figure. The word "dead" 



Arq. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



207 



is used to denote the total depravity of the heart by na- 
ture — a depravity that knows no good apart from the 
influences of the Holy Spirit. The figure, if it teaches 
any thing, implies that the human soul is naturally as 
destitute of the moral image of God as a dead body is of 
animal life. We can not spare those a word in a sure 
place, as we pass along, who suppose that men have 
learned to be as wicked as they are from bad example. 
Not to ask the question, how those who set the bad exam- 
ple themselves become depraved, it is well to observe that 
the context says that the Ephesians were "by nature," 
that is, by hirth, "the children of wrath even as others." 

They were, then, totally and naturally depraved. But 
the text says, "He hath quickened," which, according to 
its original signification, means to make alive with, and as 
" Christ " is added, it means to make alive with Christ, in 
this passage. That is, the life and the Spirit of Christ 
dwell in the man who is " quickened," the same as the sap 
of the vine dwells in the branches. And, since the spirit 
of Christ dwells in him, he is Christ's, and if this be not 
the case, he is not Christ's. The transition is from death 
to life. There can not be a half-way station, any more 
than a soul can be the servant of Christ and a servant of 
Satan at the same time. He must be either God's son or 
Satan's, since he must be either dead or alive spiritually; 
for men, physically, are either absolutely dead or abso- 
lutely alive. The spirit is either in the body or out of it ; 
if the former, then the man is positively alive ; if the lat- 
ter, then he is actually dead. This is the figure that St. 
Paul uses, namely, life and death; the former to indicate 
union with Christ, the latter to represent the unregenerate 
state. God and the devil never yet went into partnership 
in any property. He is a "jealous" God, and his glory 
he "will not give to another." Joint stock in a human 
soul would imply that they were on terms of friendsliip, 
whereas they are as opposed to one another as light and 



208 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part I. 



darkness. "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" 
"What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteous- 
ness ?" " What communion hath light with darkness ?" 
As these interrogatories manifest God's displeasure at the 
Christian who would contaminate himself with the heathen 
as to outward intercourse, so the phrase "hath quick- 
ened," which is the same in sense as hath regenerated, 
implies that the soul is wholly in possession of the Divine 
image and favor. When the terms used, that is, " quick- 
ened" and "dead," are absolutely opposed to one an- 
other, as the cause of each state respectively, must not 
their effects be also absolute ? 

(d) Another phrase, whose irresistible force of meaning 
may be overlooked to some extent, is, "a new creature." 
"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." The 
Greek word zr:Vj^, Jctisis, here translated " creature," is 
rendered creation in Romans viii, 19. Mr. Wesley trans- 
lates the passage verbally thus : " If any one be in Christ, 
there is a new creation." Does not the new creation of 
one IN Christ stand opposed to all that was old, as to the 
man who is not in Christ ? If his heart is " wholly " new, 
as the expression implies, and at the same time refers to 
the regenerate state only, how can we conceive of it as 
partly old ? Was not St. Paul in the habit of telling the 
truth without the use of unnecessary epithets ? When he 
said "a new creature, or creation," did he not mean just 
as much as if he had said a " wholly new," an " abso- 
lutely new," a "perfectly new," or an " entirely new crea- 
tion ?" Such partial oldness is implied in the idea of the 
necessity of a second blessing under the name of entire 
sanctification, to remove what was lacking to constitute 
the absolutely-sinless state — the neiv creature. 

(e) Perhaps it would be well for us to notice the force 
of the word " son," as applied to those who are regen- 
erated. We may conclude that our sonship with the 
Father, which all admit to be a result of the new birth, is 



Arg. X.] JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION. 



209 



the greatest relation conceivable for mortals to sustain to 
God. Indeed, being always open to conviction, we will 
fully adopt the theory of others when they prove a greater 
state of blessedness in this life than what is implied in 
this. The sonship of believers was St. John's grand 
theme when he said, '^Behold what manner of love the 
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the 
SONS OF God." 

We have reason to object to what is called entire sancti- 
fication till, even in theory, it affords us a greater, a hap- 
pier, a more perfect, and a more godlike relation to our 
Heavenly Father than regeneration does. This, to an 
apostolic mind, seemed the sum of all things ; yet it is a 
result of the new birth instead of a result of some second 
or more extended work. Since the son of the father can 
not be more than the son, neither can we of the heavenly. 
Therefore, if there is entire sanctity it adds no additional 
result. 

18 



PART II. * 

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



PKELIMIl^AET. 



I AM now about to enter upon the Second Part of this 
work, which will treat of perfection and of sanctification. 
These two I regard as theologically identical. Those who 
have written on Christian perfection have taught that it 
and entire sanctification, as a greater work than the new 
birth, are one and the same. Dr. Peck says, "Entire 
sanctification and Christian perfection are identical."* I 
am not inclined to use these terms exactly as others have 
done ;^ for, 

First. I wholly reject the phrase entire sanctification." 
1. Because, on a close examination, as additional or dis- 
tinct in the soul to regeneration, I find no such phrase, 
either exactly or equivalently, in the Bible. 2. Such an 
expression seems to be an abuse of language ; for if sancti- 
fication means a cleansing, it is unreasonable, Scripturally, 
to conceive of it as a partial work. Such would not be 
a cleansing at all, so that if used, when applied to any 
kind of purification to which it may be fitly, its import 
must be taken in a perfect and complete sense. Every 
one is either morally impure or else he is not; if he is, 
he is not sanctified — granting the word in part to imply 
moral purity — if he is not morally impure he is sanctified, 
on the same hypothesis. There can be no medium. 

Secondly. I hold that regeneration means as complete 
a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart as others mean 
when they use the phrase entire sanctification." Yet 
because I take this ground I do not want any one to say 

*■ Christian Perfection Abridged, p. 76. 

213 



214 



PRELIMINARY. 



[Part II. 



that my view of the subject, upon the whole, is, that regen- 
eration is entire sanctifi cation. Such a declaration is a 
misrepresentation of my view, as the fourth preliminary 
remark, below, will show, as well as the entire work fol- 
lowing. I further deem this regeneration to be as neces- 
sary to an entrance into the final heaven of God's people 
as others hold entire sanctification to be. 

Thirdly. I do not agree with those who regard sanctifi- 
cation, in any degree of it, as an inward moral purity, 
and Christian perfection to be identical. But I take the 
ground as above stated, that sanctification, without any 
epithet, and Christian perfection are one and the same. 

Fourthly. I believe these two are the fPvUITS of justifi- 
cation and regeneration, that they do not at all mean the 
inward work, as a cleansing in the soul. But call that 
complete inward work by what name we please, sanctifi- 
cation and perfection are the fruits of it, as exhibited in 
the life of the man of God, and are as distinct from the 
inward work of the Holy Spirit as the fruit is distinct 
from the tree that bears it. In the First Part of my 
work I have argued, generally, in a negative manner, that 
is, more by way of disproof and objection than by advanc- 
ing such direct arguments as would tend to fully clear up 
the darkness which has characterized this subject; yet I 
have left my ideas in some respects suggestive of my 
meaning. I now, in treating of the fruits of regeneration, 
propose to explain all the important texts which the 
reader may think stand against these arguments, and 
which, I think, others have honestly and religiously mis- 
apprehended. But to say that sanctification and Christian 
perfection are the fruits of justification and regeneration, 
may not be sufficiently expressive, as to what they consist 
in. It may be well, therefore, to say, in order to be clear 
in what I am about to set forth, that sanctification and 
Christian perfection consist in keeping all the command- 
ments as the proof of the justified relation, or taking the 



Part II.] 



PRELIMINARY. 



215 



moral law as the whole of the commands in an abridged 
form, I would say, that the two identical graces in ques- 
tion consist in keeping the moral law of God as the fruit 
and demonstration of justifying faith. 

Fifthly. I maintian that the Holy Scriptures do not 
teach any where distinctly, that either sanctification or 
perfection is an internal work, but that they every-where 
ostensibly declare that they are the outward part of Chris- 
tianity, in the sense in which I have above stated. 

I now hold myself bound for these statements, and for 
the presentation of the truth, as I understand it, in which 
I shall not, willingly, omit any one clear and strong pas- 
sage held as a proof-text by entire sanctificationists. For 
I would not undertake to write on this subject if I did not 
with most conscientious sincerity believe that I see this 
question in the very sense in which Divine revelation de- 
signed it to be considered. 

It seems, therefore, a consistent subject all the way 
through, from whatsoever stand-point it may be viewed. 
The opinions herein held seem theologically consistent. 
They seem, as to every word employed, to harmonize with 
the etymological meaning, and with the context of the pas- 
sages severally examined, as far as a context in each case 
can at all be traced. They agree with the lexicographical 
use of words, and to crown all, they have an adaptation to 
the human understanding, as to consistency, which seems 
without contradiction or clash. It is evidently possible to 
attain such a perfection in this life, or a consistent Lord 
and Judge would not have given us commands to keep. 
This perfection is, at the same time, as practical as it is 
plain. A plain, unadorned presentation of this doctrine, 
as other doctrines are plain, and as they are viewed alike 
by the mass of Christians, and so receive by common con- 
sent the approbation of men in general, and the approval 
of that Divine Author whence they emanated, is the 
highest ambition of the author, as to a subject concerning 



216 



PRELIMINARY. 



[Part II. 



which SO much obscurity and impracticability have here- 
tofore prevailed. 

A proof of the position herein held will now be 
attempted from Scripture. Since several words are found 
in the sacred Word, used to express the pruit of the 
justified relation and the regenerate state, several texts 
of each of these will be examined in their respective 
places, taking them severally as they are found in the 
original languages of the Holy Scriptures. 

S. F. 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



ARGUMENT XI. 

D'pn — TAMIM. 

I. Gen. vi, 9 : " These are the generations of Noah : 
Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and 
Noah walked with God." In examining this passage, 
three questions arise. 1. What is meant hy Noah^s being 
JUST? 2. What hy his being ^miEmTt 3. What hy his 

WALKING WITH GoD ? " 

1. {a) As to the first, the word ^'just" of the text, in 
Hebrew is p'^^, tsaddiJc, and is here exactly translated, 
in our English version of the Bible. Gesenius, in the 
third place, as marked in his Hebrew-English Lexi- 
con, defines it thus : " Of a private person, just toward 
other men — Prov. xxix, 7 — obedient to Divine laws : hence 
righteous, upright, virtuous, pious, good.^^ The word 
usually employed in the Septuagint, for a translation of 
this one, is diy.aioq, dikaios. Again, he says, "Emphat- 
ically, of innocence from faults, crime, etc. Ecc. vii, 20. 
There is not a just man on earth,^^ etc. This adjective 
comes from the verb pnir, tsadhak, which is the root of 
it, and which means to justify, to make just, etc. It is so 
used in Isa. liii, 11, where the prophet speaks of Christ 
as the Justifier of the ungodly. From this verb there is 
also the kindred noun npny, (tsedhakah,) righteousness, or 
justification. It is found in Gen. xv, 6, where it is said, 
''he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and he counted it 

to him for righteousness [justification. J' Now, if the 

19 217 



218 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOX. [Part II. 



verb means to justify^ if the noun means justification, it 
seems very reasonable that the adjective should mean just^ 
as applied to one in the justified relation and regenerate 
state, which state has been shown in former arguments 
to imply a perfect work of grace in the soul. 

(5) The context shows that the word "just" means that 
Noah was in this justified relation. For, in verses 5 and 
6, it is said, " God saw that the wickedness of man was 
great in the earth, and that every imagination of the 
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." It is 
also said, " It repented the Lord that he had made man 
on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." After 
God had said that he would destroy man from the face 
of the earth, on account of his wickedness, as to Noah it 
is said, " But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." 
But no one ever did, since the fall of man, find grace or 
favor with God except on the sole ground of faith. 
" "Without faith it is impossible to please him." This 
faith which justified Noah, was the condition of man's 
favor with the Lord, which God afterward made the term 
of the Abrahamic covenant, when he revealed his plan of 
saving men in a covenant form. His finding grace, then, 
with God, implies the same faith of Abraham, the same 
justification, the same regenerati.on, and, consequently, 
the same perfect and absolute purity of heart ; all which 
purity is implied in the one expression — "Noah was 
JUST." Moreover, " The Lord said unto Noah, Come 
thou and all thy house into the ark : for thee have I seen 
righteous before me in this generation." Gen. vii, 1. 
That is, the Lord saw that Noah was just, that is, a just- 
ified man before his God, and for this very reason of 
his justification and regeneration of heart, the Lord com- 
manded him, as one who had the necessary spiritual qual- 
ification to enter into the ark and to be saved. His just- 
ification saved him. Hence, St. Peter says, telling how 
God saves the righteous and destroys the wicked, " He 



Ana. XI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATIOX. 



219 



spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth per- 
son, a preacher of righteousness, [orxajo^ru^/r;:^, justifica- 
tion^ bringing in the flood upon the world of the un- 
godly." Now, if Noah was a preacher of justification hy 
faith, it would seem absurd to say that he himself was 
not a justified man who had experienced this blessing by 
faith which he preached and recommended to others. 
Let this suffice, then, on the question, What is meant by 
Noah being just ? We notice, 

2. What is to be understood hy Noah being perfect ^?^ 
his generations f The word "perfect" in our text is 
D'Dn, tamim, in the Hebrew ; hence, I call this the tamim 
argument. Its root, in the HebrcAv, is the verb ddp, 
tamam, which signifies, as first defined by Gesenius, " to 
complete, to perfect, to finish^ And the adjective under 
consideration, naturally, is of kindred meaning; hence he 
defines it first, " complete, perfect.^' This last is obviously 
its radical signification. The w^ords of our text contain 
their own interpretation. The word in the passage trans- 
lated "m," is the Hebrew preposition 3, be. This Gese- 
nius defines, in the second place, thus : " As denoting the 
being in the midst of a number or multitude, in, among. 
Lam. i, 3 ; D*iJ3, {baggoyim^ among the nations.^^ In 
our version it is translated, "Judah . . . dwelleth 
AMONG the heathen." Compare Septuagint, h ed'^tci, and 
Matt, xi, 11, ye^^'^rjToiq ywarAwv, "AMONG them that are 
born of women.'' It is, therefore, no innovation to trans- 
late the passage, "Noah was perfect among his gener- 
ations." Again, the word " generations," in the He- 
brew", is nni, <^horoth. As to this passage Gesenius 
thus speaks and defines : " The generation of any one, 
that is, the men of his age, his cotemporaries. Is. liii, 
8; Gen. vi, 9, T^^"'"''^? •^^r? Q'?^"^) Noah was upright among 
his generation. The Hebrews, as we do, seem commonly 
to have reckoned the duration of a generation at from 
thirty to forty years, compare Job xlii, 16 ; but in the 



220 



EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



times of the patriarclis it was reckoned at a hundred 
years, see Genesis xv, 16." That is, Noah was per- 
fect among ^' his coteuiporaries'^ — among the men of 
his age,^^ who lived together at that time, more than 
^'a hundred years." These "men of his age," or "co- 
temporaries," knew that the patriarch was " a preacher 
of righteousness;" they had heard him preach; they 
watched his conduct to see if it would accord with the 
doctrine which he preached. This perfection consisted in 
t e outward deportment of Noah, as to his keeping the 
commands of God, in proof of his regeneration. He ap- 
peared to his cotemporaries as a perfect man, because 
he kept what oral commands God had given him to keep, 
which constituted the rules of his conduct by which those 
of his day were to render their judgment as to his per- 
fection or his imperfection ; for, without those oral com- 
mands there would have been no law for him to keep nor 
violate, and so to mark perfection or imperfection. It ^ 
can not be the inward purity of the heart by which our 
cotemporaries, or neighbors, judge us, for this they can 
not see. It is the fruit by which the tree is known. 
These fruits are adjudged as good or bad, according as 
they are approved or disapproved by the Divine law. 
God told Noah to build the ark for the salvation of him- 
self and family, as he was about to destroy the world by 
a flood. After this command was given him, it is said, 
" Thus did Noah, according to all that God commanded 
him, so did he." Gen. vi, 22. The Divine commands 
orally given were to him the moral law. They stood in 
the same relation to him that the Decalogue, subse- 
quently delivered on tables of stone, as the sum of the 
whole Divine will to man, does to us. Consequently, not 
by his preaching merely, but by outward obedience to 
such things as he was commanded to do, "he condemned 
the world, and became heir [-r^<r y.aza ruffriv duaioffbvriq^ oP 

THE [justification ACCORDING TO] FAITH." Heb. xi, 7. 



Aug. XI.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



221 



Therefore, "Noah was perfect in his generations." 
Notice, it does not say he was perfect or wholly sanctified 
in heart as a second work, and as some virtually teach. 
But it says, Noah was perfect among his cotemporaries. 
This is the particular wherein his perfection consisted. 
The whole force of the word perfect " is absolutely 
limited to the phrase among his cotemporaries. There- 
fore, Christian perfection does not consist, according to 
this passage, in a second work of grace, inward, subse- 
quent to, and greater than regeneration ; but it consists 
in fulfilling the moral law as the proof of justifying faith. 

3. We now observe what is signified by Noah's walk- 
ing WITH God. This phrase . is identical in sense with 
perfection. The text itself will show this. It Avill be 
seen that the verse under consideration contains, in the 
English translation, the word '^and^' twice. It will also 
be seen that it is printed in italics, to show that it is not 
in the Hebrew. If we translate without this interpola- 
tion it will read, " Noah Avas a just man, perfect in his 
generations ; Noah walked with God." It seems as if the 
second and third clauses of this text are the same, as to 
theological meaning, and that they both express the fruit 
of that state of grace described in the first clause. The 
inspired writer designed to convey the idea that Noah was 
a man Avho was justified by faith and so regenerated ; to 
express this idea he said, "Noah was a just man." He 
then designed to give the proof of this state of grace by 
adding, "perfect in his generations." Then to develop 
and more fully explain what he meant by this, he further 
adds a synonymous and explanatory expression, "Noah 
AVALKED with God." Now, that perfection, in the sense 
of keeping the moral law as the test of saving faith, is 
synonymous with the phrase, " walked with God, " is ap- 
parent from proof which we have at hand. " Blessed are 
the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the 
Lord." Psa. cxix, 1. The word " undefiled," here, is 



222 



EEYIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



perfect in the Hebrew. The margin of our Bibles has it 
marked ^'perfect or sincere.'^ It is the very same adjec- 
tive ^« mm that is translated "perfect" in our text as to 
Noah. The Hebrew stands thus : D'i)Snn ^'^J-^D'Dn ^-^w,^ 
mn: r;:)in3, {aslire tliemime dharek Jiaholkim bethoraih 
Yehovah,) the blessedness of the perfect as to the way^ 
the walkers in the law of Jehovah. This, I think, is 
an exact translation of the passage. The word " way," 
dharek^ as here found, Gesenius defines, "A way, that is, 
course^ mode, manner, in which one toalks, lives, which one 
follows, . . . spoken of men, a way or conduct which 
Jehovah approves, and in which men ought to walk. Psa. 
V, 9, [8]." As to the translation above given, let it be 
observed that men are said to be perfect ix, as to, or in 
RESPECT TO the "way" or "mode" of life which God has 
given them to walk in. Observe carefully that " the per- 
fect as to the way," and " the walkers in the law of Je- 
hovah," are in apposition in the same case, and conse- 
quently they are grammatically the same persons. The 
word " way " is also in apposition with the word " law," 
so that the sense is just the same as if the Psalmist had 
said. Blessed are the perfect as to the law. iN^ow, if we are 
correct in what we deem to be a verbal translation of this 
text, it will be seen that Christian perfection consists in 
keeping the moral law of God, as the fruit of justification 
and regeneration. The blessedness of which the Psalm- 
ist speaks is predicated of the perfect as to the laiv — as 
to the Divine mode or course of life marked out by Je- 
hovah, as the rule of their Christian conduct — "com- 
manding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong." 
It is not a perfection of heart; it is not what some call 
" entire sanctification " of the soul, but it is the fruit of 
regeneration. Therefore, since the walker in the law of 
Jehovah and the perfect as to the way are one and the 
same, and since it is said " Noah walked with God," his 
walking with God and his perfection in or among his gen- 



Arg. Xl.J PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATIOX. 223 

erations, that is, his cotemporaries, are one and the same, 
and his perfection, as before argued, consisted in his 
keeping the oral commands which God gave unto him, as 
signal of that relation, indicated in the words " Noah 
found GRACE in the eyes of the Lord." 

II. Gen. xvii, 1 : " And when Abram was ninety years 
old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to 
him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be 
thou perfect." In the examination of this text two ques- 
tions arise. 

1. Was Abram justified hy faith when God appeared 
unto him and gave him this command to he perfect, or ivas 
he notf As to this question, we find it stated in Gen- 
esis — chap. XV — that Abram " believed in the Lord ; and 
he counted it to him for righteousness." Then Abram 
had no child. But it is related — chap, xvi — that Hagar, 
the handmaid of Sarai, bare him Ishmael, and in verse 16 
of the same chapter, it is said, "Abram was fourscore 
and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram." 
The several facts show that Ishmael w^as born about one 
year, rather less, after the justification of Abraham, since 
God put his promise into immediate fulfillment as to the 
posterity of the patriarch. We may, therefore, deduct 
one year from the " fourscore and six," which will leave 
Abraham eighty-five years old when he was justified by 
faith, and received the " blessing " of which St. Paul 
speaks, and which all admit to have been regeneration, as 
connected with his justification, and which has been shown 
to be a sinless work wrought in the heart by the Holy 
Spirit, and rendering void the notion of entire sanctifica- 
tion, held by solne as a subsequent and greater blessing. 
But the text says God appeared to Abram when he was 
NINETY-AND-NINE years old, at which time he gave him 
this command to be perfect. So if we deduct eighty-five 
years from the ninety-and-nine, we have fourteen re- 
maining, which was about the length of time from the 



224 



REVIEW OF WESLEY AN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



regeneration of Abram to the utterance of the command 
for him to be perfect. This, then, decides the first ques- 
tion which the text demands. We inquire, 

2. WJiat is meant hy Abram ivalking before God and be- 
ing perfect ? Suppose it be assumed that this perfection 
signifies a subsequent work in the heart to that of regen- 
eration, and let it be assumed that the passage, " This is 
the will of God, even your sanctification," means the 
same thing, a query then arises : Is it the will of God 
that a man must live only partially saved from sin for 
the long term of fourteen years? Is it the will of God 
that Abram, the friend of God, should have his sins only 
suspended^ not destroyed, for so long a time before he 
commanded him to be perfect? If we are to be the chil- 
dren of Abram, and to follow in his footsteps, " the steps 
of that faith of our father Abraham," must not we also 
live only partially saved for fourteen years, at least, after 
our justification? But the objector may say, "Would 
not this long delay of a subsequent command stand as 
forcibly against your own view of perfection as it does 
against that of others?" We answer emphaticall}^, no. 
For God was not about this time to introduce a doctrine 
of perfection, as a work in the soul necessary to eternal 
life, and additional to regeneration; but he was about to 
establish a sign of the inward grace which Abram had 
fourteen years before received. This sign was circum- 
cision, as all the rest of the chapter in which this text in 
discussion is found, and all its immediate context will 
prove. This chapter let us now proceed to examine. In 
verse 1 — "I am the Almighty God; walk before me and 
be thou perfect" — the command is generic; that is, the 
rule by which Abram is to walk, so far as it relates to the 
first verse, and the sense in which he is to understand the 
word " perfect," are not yet expressed by the Lord. They 
are both merely mentioned abstractedly. They include the- 
part which Abram is to perform in the covenant. The 



Arq. XI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 225 

second verse teaches an abstract or generic doctrine also. 
" And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and 
will multiply thee exceedingly.*' As to these two verses, 
observe that God has not yet told Abram in what his per- 
fection is to consist, as Abram' s part to the covenant, nor 
has he yet told him Avhat he himself would do, as his own 
part, any further than what is embraced, without any 
further explanation, in the words, " I will multiply thee 
exceedingly." This is all plain from two facts in the 
account. (1.) The manner in which the general announce- 
ment of the covenant terms about to be revealed at large 
and in particular to Abram, affected him. "Abram fell 
on his face." This prostrated veneration is a proof that 
he had not heard the charge before, and that now he waits 
worshipfully to receive it. Then " God talked with him," 
etc. (2.) God proceeds fully and clearly to deliver to 
Abram the two respective parts belonging to the covenant. 
-One of these is to be performed by the Almighty himself, 
and, in order, first made known; the other by Abraham, 
and, in order, secondly made known. Now, before these 
respective parts of the covenant are quoted and pointed 
out in this argument, it must be distinctly understood that 
the covenant now^ about to be established — verse 7 — was 
not a covenant in which God offered, as his own part in 
it, the pardon of sin ; for it has been shown that fourteen 
years before he counted Abram' s faith for justification. 
It is a covenant made with Abram when in a state of 
favor with God, and fourteen years subsequent to his par- 
don ; as St. Paul says, when he was in " uncircumcision." 

He declares — verse 10 — "This is my covenant, which 
ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after 
thee ; Every man-child among you shall he circumcised.''^ 
This was the covenant which God established with Abram 
in confirmation of the promise made to him about fourteen 
years before; for, (1.) This was about the length of time 
back to his justification in the sense of pardon. (2.) The 



223 LEVIEAY OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



part which God promises to perform in this covenant is 
not to bless Abram personally, as an act of pardon and 
regeneration, but he proposes to bless him in the sense 
of recognizing him nationally, rather, in the sense of be- 
ing his God, and of holding his posterity as the sacred 
nation, as opposed to heathens whom he did not take into 
his special favor. (3.) On the part of Abram it is cir- 
cumcision that is required as the fruit of his former and 
continued faith, and not faith itself, in the abstract, as 
when he was first justified. (4.) The covenant, here 
spoken of, is a mere ratification of the former relation 
existing between Abram and God, which relation was a 
complete deliverance from sin at the time of pardon and 
the new birth ; and these imply the promise and condi- 
tions of grace in full, antecedent to the mere ratification 
of the same by the institution of circumcision fourteen 
3^ ears after. 

Circumcision, Abram' s part in this covenant, is the sign 
of this deliverance from sin. "He received the sign of 
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
which he had yet being uncircumcised." Thus circum- 
cision w^as, according to apostolic authority and theolog- 
ical consent generally, a " sign " of the inward grace, and • 
the performance of the act of circumcision was a fruit of 
the justified relation ; or, in the language of St. James, it 
was a work which just as ostensibly "justified" Abram 
as the subsequent work of ofi'ering up Isaac did; that is, 
it slioived him to be in the justified relation. The charge, 
then, to Abram to be " perfect," as given in the abstract, 
is not to seek a work in the heart, but it is to do an act 
as the fruit of such a w^ork, and proceeding frorti the 
heart. We will now proceed to show from the context 
m luhat this perfection of our text consists. 

God having given the command in the abstract, and 
Abram having fallen on his face, the requirement of the 
covenant is then given in two parts. The first part is 



Arg. XI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



227 



what God intends and promises to do, beginning ^vith the 
fourth verse and ending with the eighth in these words : 
"As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou 
shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy 
name any more be called Abram; but thy name shall be 
Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 
And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make 
nations of thee; and kings shall come out of thee. And 
I will ESTABLISH my covenant between me and thee, and 
thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlast- 
ing covenant ; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed 
after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed 
after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the 
land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will 
be their God." Here ends God's part in the covenant 
ratification which he promises to do. Then he directly 
mentions the second part which he commands Abraham 
to do, beginning at the ninth verse, where the first part 
left off, and ending with the fourteenth in these words: 
*'And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my cov- 
enant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their 
generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, 
between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; Every 
mail-child among you shall he circumcised. Aiid ye shall 
he circumcised in the Jtesh of your foreskin; and it shall 
he a token of the covenant hetwixt me and you. And he 
that is eight days old shall he circumcised among you, every 
man-child in your generations, he that is horn hi the house, 
or hought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy 
seed. He that is horn in thy house, and he that is hought 
with thy money, ^must needs he circumcised ; and my covenant 
shall he in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the 
uncircumcised man-child, ivhose flesh of his foreskin is not 
circumcised, that sold shall he cut off from his people; he 
hath hroken my covenant.'^ Here ends the part of the 
ratification of the covenant which Abram received to keep 



228 



EEVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



and to practice. That portion of the chapter contained 
• in the fifteenth and twenty-second verses inclusive, is a 
promise to Abraham that Isaac shall be born unto liim, 
which may be regarded as a continuation of what God 
promises on his part to do. It need not be quoted fur- 
ther than to remark that in it is said, " My covenant will 
I establish with Isaac," in whom the seed should be called, 
who was the father of Jacob, and the grandfather of 
Judah : from which tribe, says St. Paul, it is evident 
our Lord sprang."' In this God still holds out to Abra- 
ham the promised Messiah and the spiritual seed. Our 
next observation on this chapter is, that Abraham imme- 
diately — ''the self-same day" — obeyed this external part 
of his rehgion — his part in the covenant — as set forth in 
these Avords : " And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and 
all that were born in his house, and all that were bought 
with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's 
house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the 
self-same day, as God had said unto him. And Abraham 
was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised 
in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was 
thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh 
of his foreskin. In the self- same day was Abraham cir- 
cumcised, and Ishmael his son; and all the men of his 
house, born in the house, or bought with money of the 
stranger, were circumcised with him." 

Now, all this may be safely regarded as the immediate 
context to the first verse, on which this exposition is 
offered, where Abram is commanded to walk before God 
and be perfect. This context, strictly speaking, contains 
four parts : (1.) A general statement — verse 2 — that God 
will make a covenant between himself and Abraham. (2.) 
A distinct declaration of that part in the covenant which 
God takes upon himself to do. (3.) That which Abra- 
ham on his part is commanded to do. (4.) The fact that 
Abraham did fulfill the command of circumcision as God 



Arc. XI.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATIOX. 



229 



directed. In this act of obedience to the Divine command 
did Abraham's perfection consist. 

It was the outward keeping of the command of God 
which generically and summarily was embraced in the 
words, " Walk before me, and be thou perfect." This im- 
plies a moral law as the rule of action in which he was to 
walk. But it has been before shown that a walker in the 
law of the Lord and a perfect man are identical. Now, 
the context, following the first verse, and including all the 
rest of the chapter, is the law in which he was to walk, 
which Abraham obeyed, and so was perfect to the letter. 
His perfection was obedience to circumcision, as a sign 
of his justification, as St. Paul says — Rom. iv, 11. It 
was no inward work at all, and to say that his perfection 
was such, savors much of that error which holds that 
water- baptism washes away sin, and is, circumcision and 
baptism beiug both outward signs of the same inward 
grace, very similar to it. On the hypothesis that the ex- 
pression, " Walk before me, and be thou perfect," does 
mean what some hold Christian perfection to be — an in- 
ward work — there are some difficulties. 

1. It has been shown that Abraham was justified about 
fourteen years before, which gracious relation has been 
argued to include regeneration as a perfectly-sinless state 
of the soul, as absolute purity of heart, and consequently 
there could have been no need for Abraham receiving such 
a blessing, since all the work of grace conceivable, as to 
internal purity, took place so long before. 

2. Another difficulty is, that there is absolutely no con- 
text to support such a doctrine, but, on the contrary, a full 
and clear one which may include the history of the patri- 
arch's conversion, which context means something, or we 
■would not find it where we do. 

3. It may seem absurd that God should command Abra- 
ham to be perfect, and not plainly tell him in what his 
perfection was to consist. In other words, would it not 



230 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



seem unreasonable for God to command his servant to 
WALK before him, and to be perfect, both of which imply 
a rule of action for the government of his life, and he not 
to plainly set forth to him what that law was? It is not 
revealed to us in what the patriarch's perfection was to 
consist, if the context has not revealed it. It is a remark- 
able fact that perfection, wherever taught in the Holy 
Scriptures, is largely, plainly, and minutely set forth in 
the context of the respective passage containing the doc- 
trine. Thus the perfection of Noah, as we have found it, 
consisted in his obedience to the command of God to build 
the ark, and Abraham's perfection is seen to be his obe- 
dience to the command of circumcision; and so of, per- 
haps, every other place where the doctrine of perfection is 
taught by direct command, and the very same may be said 
of sanctification. This we will find to be so, as we further 
proceed. 

Besides what has been said as to the perfection of Abra- 
ham, it may now be proper to present an argument from 
the Septuagint, in order to see in what sense the ancient 
Jews held his perfection, considered from a Greek stand- 
point. The phrase, " Be thou perfect," in the Septuagint 
is yhoo aixsij-Toq — ginou amempfos — become thou blameless. 
St. Paul uses the same Greek word in several places, 
which fact will serve, to some considerable extent, to fix 
the sense of the word, at least as the Septuagint under- 
stood it. " Do all things without murmurings and disput- 
ings : that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of 
God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and per- 
verse generation." Phil, ii, 14, 15. Observe, (1.) They 
are to do all things without murmurings and disputings, 
both of which belong to the Christian's daily and outward 
deportment as the fruit and proof of inward grace. (2.) 
The final end, " That — "/va, hina, in order that — they 
may be blameless," a/is/j-Toc, amemptoi. Is not this the 
outward work of the Christian, and not the inward ? Now, 



Arg. XI.] PERFfiCTIOX AND SANCTIFICATION. 



231 



this perfection of Abraham, if defined through the Greek 
channel and through St. Paul, consists in a life, so far as 
defined by this one text, " without murmurings and dis- 
putings," hence not an inward work, but the fruit of that 
work. Again, " Touching the righteousness which is of 
the law blameless," a/is/xnro^j amemptos. Phil, iii, 6. 

St. Paul's perfection, while a Jew, he held as a Jew's 
perfection, and boasted in it ; that is, he looked at it with 
Jewish eyes and Jewish understanding, and one of the ele- 
ments of the blameless character which he, as a son of 
Abraham, had, so far as it pertains to outward religion, 
was that he was ^' circumcised the eighth day."^ This he 
gives as a part of the context where he says he was 
blameless." And the Hfe of the apostle, previous to his 
conversion, was any thing but that of absolute purity of 
heart, as his conversion and history show. He was not 
blameless as to the soul, but " touching the righteousness 
which is of the law." 

Again : " And the Lord make you to increase and 
abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, 
even as we do toward you ; to the end he may stablish 
your hearts unblamable [afis/x-Too:;, amemptous'] in holiness 
before God." 1 Thess. iii, 12, 13. This passage, evi- 
dently, can not be regarded as a proof of perfection as 
an inward grace ; for it is to consist in increasing and 
abounding hi love toward one anotlier^ which is the fulfill- 
ing of the moral law, in which perfection, according to our 
arguments, is to consist, as the result of saving faith. 
This abounding and increasing in love the apostle prays 
may take place in their outward conduct toward one an- 
other, not for or unto the wholly sanctifying of their 
hearts, but for or unto the establishing of their hearts. 
There is some difi'erence between making permanent and 
making every whit pure. 

* Does not this imply that St. Paul held the eircuiucision of Abraham 
exactly in that sense in which we have argued it? 



232 



REVIEW OF WESLETAX PERFECTIOX. [Part II. 



Finallv : of Zacharias and Elisabeth it is said : " They 
were both righteous [duami, dikaioi, just, that is, justified] 
before God, [and, as the proof of this 7'eIation,~\ walking 
in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord 
blameless,'" tH/ie/i-zoi. amemptoi. Did this blamelessness 
consist in a certain amount of internal purity over and 
above the regenerate state ? We understand Dr. Peck to 
say that it did ; for in his abridged work on Christian Per- 
fection, page 228, he gives the account of Zacharias and 
Elisabeth, with some others, as " particular instances of 
persons "who were said to be perfect, blameless, up- 
right, etc." 

Had he clearly understood his subject, this good man 
might not have so written ; for he speaks of Zacharias 
and Elisabeth being blameless, in the sense of their hav- 
ing obtained an additional and greater work inwardly 
than regeneration, which he calls Christian perfection or 
entire sanctification ; for the above quotation from his 
book is found under his third minor division to his fifth 
proposition, which proposition is thus stated: "5. Lastly, 
I assert instances of entire sanctification in proof of its 
attainableness." Now, the writer of this argument is 
disposed to insinuate, in the face of an enlightened world, 
the possibihty of a misinterpretation, if not a gross per- 
version, of the sense of this text, which does not give 
the blamelessness of the persons as consisting in an in- 
ward work. 

The word "just," in our paraphrase above, includes all 
that inward work, so long as it is mutually agreed upon 
that regeneration is a " concomitant '' of justification, and 
so long as the verb 8ty.ai6a}, dikaioo, etymologically signi- 
fies " to malce that which is pointed out by the primitive."* 
But, 8{za:oc, diJcaios, being its "primitive," or root, d:xai6u), 
dikaioo, means to make dixaioc. dikaios, just, and hence, 
antecedent to the justification of Zacharias and Elisabeth, 

* Professor Crosby's Greek Grammar, §318, b. 



Aro. XI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



233 



they were not just. God himself could not have then pro- 
nounced them such, but at a certain time in their lives 
they believed in God unto justification, and at that moment 
he made them " dixawuq,'' just, regenerated them. After- 
ward they are said to be blameless, which does not describe 
the inward work of grace, but the outward fruit of that 
work. That is, the word " blameless " is applied to them 
as outward Christians, and not as inwardly such, and the 
word "^ws^," as embracing the new birth, is applied to 
them as inward Christians, and not as outward. A few 
observations will strengthen these remarks. 

1. Justification implies an internal blessing, which we 
have shown means a sinless or absolutely-pure state of 
the soul. 2. This being so, it is utterly impossible for 
any one justified to be made any more pwe, as to heart, 
even antecedent to the idea of his " walking in all the 
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." 
3. The pointing of the text, a comma (,) being inserted 
after dzou, God, and its diction, show that the two words 
are applied respectively to the inward and to the outward 
parts of Christianity. The first clause says, " They were 
both righteous" just. How or in what manner? i>a>-cov 
rod dsod, before God, that is, in God's estimation: he looked 
on them as ones from whom he had removed the penalty 
of sin, and whom he had also regenerated. The second 
clause says that they were " blameless." How or in what 
manner? "Walking in all the commandments and ordi- 
nances of the Lord." That is, the force of the word 
"just" or "righteous," is confined to the first clause of 
the verse ending with the word " God," and the force of 
the word "blameless" is confined to the second clause, 
and interpreted by it, because we have found a "walker" 
in the law of the Lord, and a "perfect" man, as to the 
way, to be the same. To present this text in another 
aspect, and to put its meaning at rest, so that perfection- 
ists can not claim it in their sense, two questions, which 

20 



234 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the passage itself will answer, may be asked. (1.) What 
were Zacharias and Elisabeth before God? Answer. 
Thej were both dixaw.^ just. (2.) In what did their 
blamelessness consist? Answer. Walking in all rdiq 

hroXaiq r.ai diy.ai6ij.aai, THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES 

of the Lord. If the answer to the first question teaches 
entire sanctification, so-called, then, a person merely just, 
that is, no more than justified^ as we use the term, is also 
wholly sanctified." If the answer to the second question 
teaches the theory of Dr. Peck, then, that great blessing 
is obtained, or rather consists in simply the external ob- 
servance of the "commandments" and "ordinances" of 
God. Hence, he being judge, since he claims this as his 
proof-text, one justified, who keeps the moral law as the 
demonstration thereof, is all that the Bible requires. We 
are happy to think that the Doctor entertains such a good 
opinion of a justified man. (4.) In the other instances 
quoted from the xsew Testament, and in the passage con- 
cerning Abraham, as taken from the Septuagint, we have 
found the Avord '-blameless " to refer to the outward part 
of religion, as a qualifier of those who keep the moral 
law, and who were before justified and regenerated, and, 
therefore, these passages are not only not for Dr. Peck's 
theory, but they are against it. And if those who believe 
with him wish to arrive at the " attainableness " of Chris- 
tian perfection, let them, like Zacharias and Elisabeth, 
walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord 
hlaineless, as the fruit of men just before God, and they 
will have it, if it, as such, is to be had. For what objec- 
tion God can have to one whom he has justified and re- 
generated, and quickened, and adopted, and made an heir, 
and blessed with the witness of the Spirit, who keeps the 
commandments, as the fruit thereof, is what we can not 
comprehend, since our Bible does not say what that objec- 
tion is. Comparing these passages with the case of Abra- 
ham, it seems to us little less than demonstration that the 



Arg. XI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



235 



patriarch's perfection is largely and forcibly sustained as 
consisting altogether in his outward deportment. 

III. Gen. V, 24: "Enoch walked with God, and was 
not: for God took him." This case properly belongs to 
the tamim argument, because it is said he " walked with 
God." This is another of the "particular instances" 
given by Dr. Peck of persons " who were said to be per- 
fect^ blameless, u2:)rightJ' He actually names the man 
" Enoch." Now, there is no doubt but that Enoch w^as 
perfect, as a servant of God, but in what that perfection 
consisted, or in what respect he was perfect, is another 
question. It has already been shown that the Psalmist 
declares the man perfect as to the way and the ivalker in 
the law of Jehovah to be the same person. But Enoch 
was the man who "walked with God;" therefore, he was 
perfect, and his perfection consisted in walking with God. 
It was a perfection as to the divine way — as to the out- 
ward life of the true servant of God, as the visible sign 
of his regeneration. The Bible no where says that Enoch 
was '''■perfect, hlameless,^^ or " upright^^ although the Doc- 
tor gives him as a " particular instance " of such. Per- 
haps the strongest thing said about him is that he walked 
toith God. This phrase must be interpreted in its common 
usage. It is much used in Scripture, and alivays means 
the manner of one's life. Robinson's Gesenius defines it 
thus : ^'To live in a manner well pleasing to God.''' 

It really seems as if any more proof on this point could 
not be necessary. But if we are wrong in our general 
exegesis of this great question, we think it well to give 
those of another belief a full opportunity to explode our 
views, but if we are correct, it is' right to tell the truth 
Well and at length. As to Enoch, further, St. Paul says 
before his translation he had the testimony that he pleased 
God, and adds : " But without faith it is impossible to 
please him." Enoch was, therefore, a man of faith, and 
he had the testimony — the witness of the Spirit, which 



236 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Pakt II. 



was given in the old dispensation as well as in the new, 
since men then were justified by faith as they are now, 
and received regeneration as a concomitant of that work, 
which is always the act of the Holy Spirit on the heart, 
and since David prayed, " Take not thy Holy Spirit from 
me " — Psa. li, 11 — all which show that the patriarch was 
regenerated, and his regeneration saved him, for God 
" took him " — " translated " him ; and the reason given of 
his translation is, that he had the testimony, that which 
bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of 
God. But this testimony is a result of regeneration ac- 
cording to St. Paul, that is, Enoch's "testimony" was 
certainly pertaining to his sonsMp. It could have been 
no more; but to be a son is to be regenerated, so this is 
the kind of a man that God " took." This is another of 
the Doctor's " particular instances " of entire sanctifica- 
tion. Enoch goes to heaven through regeneration: it is 
sufficient, as a work in the heart. The walking of Enoch 
with God was the fruit of this change, as fair reasoning 
on the history of this man, as found in Scripture, leads us 
to conclude. 

IV. Deut. xviii, 13: "Thou shalt be perfect [cpn 
tamini\ with the Lord thy God." This is, as we under- 
stand it, God's command to the Levites as a people. To 
them, as such, he gave this charge. Here is perfection 
taught. Yea, it is attainable in this life, or God would 
not have commanded them to be perfect. For if this re- 
quirement is to be fulfilled only at death, or after death, 
then, truly, the first and second commands of the Deca- 
logue forbidding polytheism and idolatry must be post- 
poned also tRl death, or about that time ; for before we 
close the exposition of this passage, we will find its spirit 
and that of the Decalogue to be the same. There is just 
one question to be decided, namely, In luhat respect is this 
peifection to he understood f That the Bible teaches such 
a doctrine is as plain and certain as that it teaches any 



i 



Arg. XI.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



237 



other; but to determine in what it consists is another and 
very important question. It here means the observance 
of the moral law, especially that part of it which refers 
to and forbids idolatry. For the proof, we will examine 
the context. In this examination two things should be 
observed. (1.) The teaching of the context. (2.) The 
place in it which the text, the thirteenth verse, occupies. 
As to the former, it is every w^ord, we may say, forbid- 
ding idolatry. Verse 9 says, ^'When thou art come into 
the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt 
not learn to do after the abominations of those nations." 
Such is the charge given in this verse. Not to do as 
heathens had done. Verse 10 says, "There shall not be 
found among you any one that maketh his son or his 
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divina- 
tion, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." 
The first prohibition in this verse has reference to the 
worship of Moloch. " Thou shalt not let any of thy seed 
pass through the fire to Molech." Lev. xviii, 21. "Ac- 
cording to the Rabbins, its statue w^as brass, with the 
members of a human body, but the head of an ox ; it 
was hollow within, was heated from below, and the chil- 
dren to be immolated were placed in its arms, while drums 
were beaten to drown their cries."* The second prohibi- 
tion disallows one " that useth divination," that is, " a di- 
viner of divinations " — a kind of lot-caster, Avho pretended 
to foretell future events, and so a false prophet perhaps. 
The third interdict respects an '•'observer of times ;^ that 
is, one acting covertly, using covert acts, practicing magic, 
sorcery, or some kind of divination connected with, or 
amounting to, idolatry. In the fourth place " an enchant- 
er " is forbidden; that is, one that takes auguries or prac- 
tices divination, or divines, or as some understand it, and 
as the Hebrew root means, "divination by serpents." 
The fifth interdiction, in verse 10, is, "There shall not 

*See Gesenius's Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 576. 



238 KEYIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 

be found among you ... a witch;" that is, a ma- 
gician^ sorcerer^^^ as the Hebrew root means, to pray, to 
offer prayers, or ivorship, and " in the Hebrew language 
is limited to idol-worship." (Gesenius.) Averse 11 says, 
''Or a charmer, or a consulter of familiar spirits, or a 
wizard, or a necromancer." He first forbids a charmer. 
This word is a part of a Hebrew verb which means " to 
hind with spells, to fascinate, to charm; spoken of a spe- 
cies of magic which was practiced by binding magic 
knots, . . . spoken of the charming of serpents." 
(Gesenius.) Verbally, "he who binds with enchantment." 
Secondly, a consulter of familiar spirits is mentioned; 
that is, he ivho consults a sorcerer, or a " conjurer who 
professes to call up the dead by means of incantations 
and magic formulas, in order that they may give responses 
as to doubtful or future things." (Robinson's Gesenius.) 
Thirdly, a wizard is forbidden; "properly, hioiving, wise.^^ 
No doubt referring to one who professed superhuman wis- 
dom, as to spirits. Fourthly, he speaks against a necro- 
mancer; literally, "he who searches into the dead" — pre- 
tends to make inquiries of departed spirits. Then verse 
12, the one next preceding our text, comes in saying, 
"For all that do these things are an abomination unto 
the Lord ; and because of these abominations the Lord 
thy God doth drive them [the heathen nations] out from 
before thee." Here is the kind of a context, then, that 
we find in the ninth and twelfth verses inclusive, and hn- 
mediately preceding the verse which teaches perfection. 
Now, omitting the thirteenth verse in its order, the four- 
teenth says, " For these nations, which thou shalt possess, 
hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners ; but 
as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so 
to do." 

Now, we proposed to show, first, the teaching of the 
context. This is found to be a constant prohibition of 
idolatry, which has been briefly explained from the orig- 



Arg. XI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



239 



inal, for general instruction, and for seeing more perfectly 
the character and intent of the passage. This idolatry, 
of various kinds, is said — verse 12 — to be " an abomina- 
tion unto the Lord," etc. 

2. The place in the context, which our text occupies, 
now claims attention. If it stood either at the beginning 
or at the end of that portion of the chapter forbidding 
idolatry, which we are compelled to call its legitimate 
context, an objector might, w4th some slight show of 
plausibility, give it some other application. But it stands 
in the middle, having a portion of the context, which 
speaks of, and prohibits idolatry preceding it ; and an- 
other part of the same context, against the same sin, mc- 
ceeding it. We now ask those who hold Christian per- 
fection to be a second, internal work, if they can either 
force or ignore this passage? Are such prepared to 
maintain that Jehovah, in an express discourse against 
idolatry, in accordance with the moral law, addressing his 
priests about to be exposed to the " abominations " of the 
heathen, bisected that discourse, and threw in a w^ord, as 
to the meaning, as foreign from that of the context, as 
SHIBBOLETH was from the tongue of an Ephraimite? 
Does not perfection here mean the observance of God's 
moral law as opposed to idolatry ? Will the reader, if 
in any way biased by incomprehensible and impracticable 
theories, endeavor candidly to consider this passage, and 
receive the truth as the Lord hath spoken it ? Should he 
feel inclined to hold to the views of fallen men as if they 
were incapable of error, and take the doctrine, as taught 
in this passage, as perfection has heretofore been held, will 
such favor us, first, wdth a context to his support? Will 
he, secondly, reason the proper context which opposes 
him all the way? Thirdly, will he tell us why he should 
not take this passage as a proof of his theory as well as 
other ones when the word "perfect" is tamim? 

If these things are not convenient for him, are we not 



240 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION, [Pact II. 



correct in saying that Christian perfection is the outward 
observance of the Divine statutes as a fruit and sign of a 
saved and covenant relation with God ? Are not the 
Divine laws, as rules of action for pure-hearted and moral 
agents, absolutely necessary to the maintenance of such 
agency and purity ? For on the hypothesis of a person 
perfectly purified in heart by the Holy Spirit, as we say 
the regenerate are, placed in an ideal world, where he 
would be still pure and in constant fellowship with God, 
and where he had no law to keep, as the rule of his 
moral conduct, how could he ever fall from grace? What 
would become of moral accountability ? What of moral 
agency ? Would not these be destroyed ? The thing is 
inevitable, that such a world, differing from this one only 
as to the non-existence of moral law, would cause the 
pure man always to remain pure ; for where no law is 
there can be no transgression, there being no moral 
boundary to go across by a voluntary act of disobedience. 
God himself could not at any time find a single imperfec- 
tion in the man. He would not be accountable, because 
he on his part could not sin, even had he been a sinner 
in an antecedent state of being, so as to know what sin 
•was, and desired then to commit it. As for God, too, he 
would have no law for the punishment of sin. Hence the 
man's internal purity must always exist. So must his 
impeccability and unaccountability. What is our conclu- 
sion, then ? It is this : 

1. Perfection, whether in Christianity or in nature, pre- 
supposes a law by which its subjects can be judged of as 
perfect, or as imperfect. 

2. Since all admit that the Holy Scriptures teach 
Christian perfection, some law therein must be the rule 
by which to determine whether one is perfect or not. 

3. The Decalogue, as the sum of the whole Divine 
will to man, must be that law. 

4. If perfection, called also entire sanctification, be an 



Arg. XI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



241 



inward work, the moral law being the standard by which 
it is to be adjudged, then such internal purity must have 
been obtained, and must be still retained, by obedience to 
that law, contrary to all Scripture, and so justification by 
faith is virtually rejected, and the doctrine itself, that 
man is wholly sanctified " by faith is also destroyed. 

5. The ground being about lost on which some predi- 
cate their view of the question, a perfection consisting in 
obedience to the Divine law, as the fruit of an anteced- 
ent and continual faith in God, as a natural sequel, must 
hold — which perfection is founded, {a) on the nature of 
the case, as necessary to free moral agency and account- 
ability; (h) On the fact that the proof-texts of Scrip- 
ture, used by entire perfectionists, when critically and 
exegetically examined, do not teach a second inward work 
of grace, but they teach invariably the fruit of regenera- 
tion as its outward sign. That is, the same proof-passages 
in our arguments are taken to prove that Christian per- 
fection is an outward work, with the aid of their contexts, 
that entire sanctificationists have taken to prove that it is 
an inward work and subsequent to regeneration without 
their contexts, and the reader is left to draw his own con- 
clusion, as to the truth of the respective positions, and as 
to the merits of the arguments on both sides. 

V. Psa. xviii, 23 : "I was also upright [D'ori, thamim, 
perfect] before [id;^, 'himmo, ivith hini] him, and I kept 
myself from mine iniquity." Here is another passage as 
proof of our position, that Christian perfection is obedi- 
ence to the moral law, as the test of a regenerate soul. 
" The end of the commandment is charity, [a^a-Ty, agape, 
love,^ out of a pure heart." But the heart is made pure 
when it is regenerated ; therefore, the end of the com- 
mandment is love out of a regenerate heart. These 
words of St. Paul are much like the above quotation from 
David. In this verse, the first thing demanding attention 

is to find out in what sense the Psalmist meant that he 

21 



242 EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part IL 

was perfect — in what respect is the perfection to be under- 
stood? The true sense may be determined at once from 
the character of the Hebrew poetry, as found in the book 
of Psalms, and throughout the Bible generally. That to 
which I refer is what grammarians of the Hebrew lan- 
guage call synonymous parallelism, which the second 
clause is entirely, or almost A repetiton of the first.''^^ 
This excellent HebrcAV philologist gives Psalm xxii, 23, 
as an example of this kind of parallelism, called synon- 
ymous, because the first clause and the second are alike 
as to meaning. The example he gives in English, thus : 

.1 ■will declare thy name to my brethren ; — 
In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee." 

Very many instances might be given of this mode of set- 
ting forth the theological idea in different words. The 
Bible abounds with it. There is a beautiful example 
in Psa. xix, 1 : 

" The heavens declare the glory of God, 
And the firmament sheweth his handywork." 

Now, any one can see, that in both these examples the 
second clause is the same in sense as the first; that 
is, in the language of our author, "A repetition of the 
first." No scholar, or theologian, would presume to say 
that when the Psalmist said, " I will declare thy name to 
my brethren," and in the next sentence said, "In the 
midst of the congregation will I praise thee," he intended 
another idea wholly foreign from the first ! In like man- 
ner, the verse under consideration is precisely of this 
sort. I would choose to translate it thus: 

" I was PERFECT with him ; 
And I kept myself from mine iniquity." 

Does it not appear, at once, obvious that the second 
clause, ''I kept myself from mine iniquity," means that 

*Dr. Nordheimer's Critical Heb. Grammar, Vol. ii, see. 1126. 



Aug. XI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATTON. 



243 



he did not commit sin — for sin is the meaning of the 
word — since St. John says, ^' Sin is the transgression of 
the law." The only way, then, that the Psalmist could 
possibly have kept himself f 7' om his iniquity, was to keep 
from the transgression of the moral law. It prohibits all 
iniquity ; therefore, since the passage is a " synonymous 
parallelism,^^ the first clause, which says, " I was perfect 
with him," signifies that he was perfect as to the moral 
law; perfect in keeping himself from iniquity. He that 
will deny this is a murderer of the Hebrew style of writ- 
ing, and of the best- established authority on the manner 
of that language. He must also murder the context, 
which in this place is plain ; for the two verses immedi- 
ately preceding agree with the text in two respects : 1. 
They are both instances of synonymous parallelism. 2. 
They both expressly teach that the Psalmist is speaking 
of the moral law, as the rule of his outward moral ac- 
tions, and not of perfection in that sense held by some. 
They read thus : 

" For I have kept the ways of the Lord, 
And have not wickedly departed from my God." — Verse 21. 

*'For all his judgments were before me, 
And I did not put away his statutes from me." — Verse 22. 

It may be proper, also, to observe here, that the excellent 
work of Mr. Horne, his " Introduction to the Study of the 
Bible," abridged edition, p. 108, gives this same usage of 
Hebrew poetry, under the name, Parallel Lines Grada- 
tionaiy Here the reader unacquainted with Hebrew can 
see this usage exemplified. And if he has not this, he 
may find a thousand instances of it in his Bible. 

6. Prov. xi, 20 : " They that are of a froward heart 
are abomination to the Lord: but such as are upright in 
the way [^i^t 'D^pn, temime dharek, perfect as to the 
way^ are his delight." 

Some Hebraists might prefer to translate this and the 



244 



REVIEAV OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



other passages quoted containing tamim, so as to express 
what is called " the construct state," corresponding to 
the genitive of the occidental languages. Thus, tlie abom- 
ination of Jehovah are the perverse OF heart; and his de- 
light are the perfect OF the way. This translation would 
not be so orood in this case, as it is desirable to brino; out 
fully and clearly the respect wherein perfection consists. 
The phrase ''as ^o," which we use, is authorized by the 
most learned men. Indeed, the translators of our Bible 
in using the phrase, " in the way^'' show plainly that they 
used the same grammar rule, and general principle of 
language that we do when we translate " as to the way^^ 
the only difference being that we use a fuller, and per- 
haps more expressive form. The grammar rules of good 
authors are full on this particular, leaving the translator 
to choose what expression he may prefer. Gesenius 
says, as to the accusative case of a Hebrew noun, like to 
the Greek "accusative of specification," "the accusative is 
employed . . . where we say, in respect to, according 
tOy etc., and in other adverbial limitations. Gen. xli, 40, 
. . . only in respect to the throne will I be greater."* 
Our authorized version says, "m the throne,^^ or we may 
say, as to the throne. Again : " Sometimes the first — of 
two words — is an attributive — adjective — and the follow- 
ing concrete or abstract noun specifies it by showing with 
respect to what the epithet applies . . . with an ab- 
stract noun . . . beautiful in form and comely in as- 
pect.^^\ Gen. xxix, 17. That is, beautiful "as to form 
and comely as to aspect. It is seen, then, that the ex- 
pression, " as to the way," is sanctioned by good author- 
ity. The abomination of the Lord is, therefore, the per- 
verse as to heart, but his delight are the perfect in, in 
respeci to, or as to the way; that is, the man who keeps 
every {ftvj of God, as the fruit and proof of justification, is 

^.fcTebrew Grammar, by T. J. Conant, sec. 118. 

i \>v. Nordheimer's Hebx'ew Grammar, Vol. ii, sec. 803. 



Alia. XII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



245 



perfect as to those laws. He that readeth let him un- 
derstand. Now, counting the passage in Psa. cxix, 1, 
and that concerning Enoch, we have adduced eight proof- 
texts of the ground we take in respect to Christian per- 
fection, in which the word tawim is found, or theolog- 
ically implied ; and several other passages might be given. 
We have also quoted several to the same effect from the 
New Testament, as viewing tamim through a Greek chan- 
nel. With these we submit the argument to the judg- 
ment of the reader, whose patience is now perhaps sorely 
taxed. 



ARGUMENT XII. 

Dil TAM. 

T 

1. PsA. xxxYii, 37: "Mark the perfect man, and be- 
hold the upright: for the end of that man is peace." 

The word on, tarn, perfect, here used, is thus defined 
by Gesenius in general: "Latin, integer, that is, whole, 
perfect^ upright, in a moral sense." It has the same root 
as tamim, of the former argument, and there defined. 
The very nature of this passage goes to show, at once, 
that the perfection of this " perfect man " consists in his 
outward Avalk and in his obedience to the Divine laws. 
For he is to be marked, that is, watched, etc., to see if he 
conducts himself according to Christian profession. 

One can easily perceive what a man is by his outward de- 
portment, but w^e have no way to tell what the heart is like 
apart from the outward conduct, because we can not dis- 
cern spirits. "What man knoweth the things of a man?" 
Nor is it by any internal characteristic of the tree that 
we know it : " The tree is known by its fruit." So, when 
it is said, " Mark the perfect man," the meaning is that 
we are to observe his exterior life. The law of God is 



246 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II 



the mirror ^hich reflects upon the world the exact like- 
ness of the religious professor, whose work, if strictly 
according to the moral law, shows him to be perfect. 
The word nna^, sJiemor, " mark,^^ is defined, " to keep in 
view, that is, to observe, to markJ' Compare the words of 
our Lord, ^' Ye are the light of the world," " Let your 
light so shine," etc. And St. Paul, " Walk worthy of the 
vocation wherewith ye are called," etc. 0, the blessedness 
of the perfect as to the ivay, the walkers in the law of 
Jehovah ! 

n. Job i, 1 : " There was a man in the land of Uz, 
whose name was Job: and that man was perfect [dp, 
taiTi] and upright," etc. 

Job's perfection seems to have consisted in his pa- 
tient submission to the will of God, as the proof of his 
internal purity. For it is said that he " eschewed evil " — 
he departed from evil, as the Hebrew word means. When 
he heard of his misfortunes it is said of him, " In all this 
Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly." There is 
apostolic authority for saying that the perfectiox of Job 
was the fruit of justification by faith. St. James writes, 
^' To servants of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." He 
addresses them : " My brethren count it all joy when ye 
fall into divers temptations" — ^just as Job. Advancing 
further, he urges upon his brethren the absolute necessity 
of good works, as the result of faith, as the proof of their 
justification, declaring faith to be dead if without works as 
its characteristic. 

All the circumstances and expressions in the case show 
that the apostle wrote his Epistle to those who were 
already Christians in a justified and saved relation to God. 
In the last chapter — verse 8 — he exhorts to patience as 
the fruit of justification. Be ye also patient ; estabhsh 
your hearts." And that he may be Scriptural, and enforce 
his argument with success, he introduces the prophets as 
instances of patience, and even names Job : " Take, my 



Arg. Xll.j PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 247 

brethren, the prophets who have spoken in the name of 
the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of 
PATIENCE. Behold, we count them happy which endure. 
Ye have heard of the patience of Job." Here is patience 
taught as the fruit of faith. 

But he says. Take, my brethren^ the prophets . . . for 
an EXAMPLE, etc. We learn from this that the apostle 
taught, 1. Patience. 2. It was to be the fruit of their just- 
ification, as the whole drift of the Epistle shows. 3. He 
gives the account of Job for an example. 4. Therefore, 
we must conclude that Job's patience and endurance of 
affliction were the fruits of his justification before God, 
otherwise St. James must be charged with a misapplica- 
tion of the relation which the patriarch's patience sustained 
to theology when he refers to him as he does. But his 
perfection consisted in fearing God and departing from 
evil, as the first and eighth verses of the first chapter say. 
His departing from evil consisted, under all his distress, 
in not sinning, and in not charging God foolishly. This 
'was his patience in his tribulation. And since the apostle 
mentions these as the fruit of justifying faith, for an ex- 
ample to his brethren, as represented in Job, it is con- 
clusive that his perfection consisted in patience under the 
sorest chastisements of the Almighty, and that it was 
God's test of his justification. 

To strengthen this position concerning Job, observe that 
St. James not only speaks of him by name, but also of the 
other prophets generally, using the word " prophel^ " in the 
plural, as men " who have spoken in the name of the 
Lord." He tells his brethren to take them " for an ex- 
ample of suffering and of patience." Now, the facts in 
the history of the prophets are to this effect ; as stated by 
James, they " spoke in the name of the Lord." They 
spoke their predictions as honest men, who were inspired 
of God, and who would have chosen death in preference to 
holding their peace when God had not spoken it. Under 



248 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the charge that God gave them from time to time, they 
rebuked Israel of old in burning language. For this 
faithful delivery of the oracles of God through them, as 
his own mouth-pieces, they suffered, with patienjBE, the 
reproach of unbelieving and ungodly men. Hence James 
says, " Take them for an example of suffering affliction." 
All which was the fruit of their regenerated state. This 
endurance, on their part, for God's sake, was their work 
which the apostle extolled. This, and the work of Noah 
already mentioned, are very plain illustrations of the 
words of James. Noah's building the ark is represented 
as his perfection, being a preacher or prophet of God; he 
did it while the antediluvian world neither feared nor be- 
lieved, but, no doubt, scoffed ; yet bearing all with patience, 
in the language of St. Paul, " He condemned the world" — 
became heir of justification according to faith. What, 
therefore, the prophets did and suffered, St. James could 
not have taken, nor can we, in any other sense than as 
proof of a saved state — of justification. Herein, then, 
is the perfection of Noah, of Job, and of all the prophets. 
My bretlu^en, mark " such men as these. Their acts 
prove that they are perfect therein. 



ARGUMENT XIII. 

DDr» TAMAM. 

PsA. XIX, 13 : " Keep back thy servant also from pre- 
sumptuous sins: let them not have dominion over me: 
then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the 
great transgression." The word DiT^J, 'ethavi, is a gram- 
matical form of tamam, above given, and is found in the 
text Ave quote. It is translated, " Shall I be upright. " 
Tamam is the Hebrew root of the two adjectives tamim 



Arg. XIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATIOX. 



249 



and tam^ last considered, the meaning of Avhich, we found, 
was perfect, and so generally translated in our version of 
the Bible, and \Yhich we have shown to be predicated of 
men who keep the commands of God as the fruit of faith. 
This verbal root Robinson's Gesenius thus defines : 1. To 
comj^lete, to jt^ez/cc^, to finish; 2. To he finished, ended, to 
have an end; 3. To he consumed, exhausted, spent; 4. To 
he complete, whole; that is, {a) In number — 1 Sam. xvi, 
11 — Are these all thy sons (h) In mind — to he whole- 
minded, upright, hlameless. Psa. xix, 14." (English, 13.) 

Under this fourth meaning it will be se^n that our au- 
thor quotes the very passage in question. He has defined 
the two derivatives, tamini and tam, by the word "perfect." 
Likewise this verb, their root, in No. 1 above, by our verb 
to perfect,^^ where it is used in the active sense ; it may, 
therefore, safely be taken so in the neuter sense, in which 
signification, under No. 4 above, although Gesenius has 
not used the exact phrase, to he perfect, to define it, he 
has nevertheless employed words of equal force. In his 
• definition he did not omit the phrase to he perfect, as if it 
was foreign to the sense, but because it was susceptible 
of a more extended definition than he happened to give it 
under No. 4. From the general meaning, therefore, of the 
verb, and the common acceptation of its two derivatives, 
we may say that it means to he perfect in No. 4, where 
Gesenius quotes our text; and this, too, for the same 
reason that it means ''Ho he upright, hlameless, etc. We 
may then translate the Hebrew thus: Also from presumpt- 
uous sins keep hack the servant of thee, let them not rule 
over me ; then shall I be perfect, and I shall he innocent 
from much transgression. 

We may now observe, 1. The Psalmist prays that he 
may be kept from presumptuous sins, and that they may 
not have dominion over him. But to be kept from sin- 
' ning is to be kept from the violation of the moral law ; 
for St. Paul would not have known sin had not that law 



250 



KEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



said, Thou shalt not covet." The prayer is, then, in 
substance, that he may be kept from breaking any of the 
ten commandments; for every sin, whether in thought, 
word, or deed, will come under one of these, and may be 
truly termed a presumptuous, a haughty, or an arrogant 
sin. 2. His conclusion is also brought in, that he will 
then he perfect. The Hebrew ?n, ^az — here translated 
"then" — is an illative particle, and means " ^/iere/ore," 
" on that account.''^ Keep hack thy servant from presumpt- 
uous sins, let them not have dominion over me; on that 
ACCOUNT shall I he perfect, etc. Or, if taken as a par- 
ticle of time, as, perhaps, it is regarded by our translation 
of the Bible, it means then, thereupon, after that. Indeed, 
this latter is the safer sense, we think, of the word as used 
in our text. That is, as soon as God, in answer to his 
prayer, grants him grace, and enables him to keep the 
Divine law, after that he tvill he perfect. We can not fail 
to see that his innocence and perfection are made to de- 
pend upon his being kept hack from sinning. They are 
made consequences of this circumstance, both as to time 
and as to natural effect. We learn from this that the 
Psalmist looked upon his perfection as a result of legal 
obedience, as a proof of the regenerate state, in which gra- 
cious condition we have every reason to believe that he 
already was, as the words " thy servant," the fact of his 
praying, of his devout desires, of his being the bard of 
Israel, must imply. The tenor of his prayer was that 
God would keep him pure in heart, and that his perfec- 
tion, as to his daily walk, might remain. Take notice : 
he did not pray for perfection as a thing not at all in his 
possession, but he prays as one already possessed of in- 
nocence and perfection, and prays for God to keep him 
such. Both the request of his prayer and the result of 
it contemplate futurity. 

Moreover, let the reader observe a few facts : 1. That 
the verb tamam is many times used in Scripture to ex- 



Arg. XIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



251 



press the perfecting or completing of- some outward, vis- 
ible, every-day act, but never in the sense of perfecting the 
act of cleansing the heart. Never is it used morally of 
such an internal work. Thus it is employed to " accom- 
plish a diligent search." Psa. Ixiv, 6. In the phrase 
"Passed clean over Jordan" — Josh, iii, 17 — the Hebrew 
reads perfected to pass over. " When they had done cir- 
cumcising all the people." Josh, v, 8. Hebrew : When 
all the people perfected to he circuyncised. " Until he 
had FINISHED all the house." 1 Kings vi, 22. The work 
of the pillars finished." 1 Kings vii, 22. " Consume 
the flesh" — Ezek. xxiv, 10 — that is, perfect it in cooking. 
So we might add many other examples. The idea of to 
perfect and of perfecting surely does not necessarily enter 
into that of to purify morally and of moral j^urification. 
It is the idea of completeyiess, of perfecting, of finishing , 
in the sense of coming up to a given or implied rule or 
standard of perfection or completeness, that is signified 
by this verb and all its kindred, and its corresponding 
ones in the Greek, wherever found in the Bible. It is not 
the idea of malung pure. Hence, Robinson's Gesenius 
does not give the sense of to purify morally, or any thing 
of that sort, once in the definition of this verb, or any 
of its derivatives. Mark this ! 

2. Observe that Job uses it in the very sense in which 
our argument holds, when he says, "Thou makest thy 
ways perfect." Job xxii, 3. " With an upright man thou 
wilt shew thyself upright." Psa. xviii, 25. HebrcAv : 
With a perfect man thou wilt shew thyself perfect. " To 
deal uprightly with any one." (Gesenius.) This verb, 
therefore, means, in a religious sense, to keep the moral 
law unto exactness, as these passages show — not to cleanse 
morallv. Regeneration does this. 



\ 



252 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



ARGUMENT XIV. 

IS'"! p. — KADHASH. 

The definition of this verb — JcadhasJi, to sanctify — has 
already been quoted, as given by Gesenius, verbatim, in 
Argument X, objection 2. It need not be repeated. If 
the reader desire to examine for himself, with the proof- 
passages in their places under each head of that defini- 
tion, he will please turn to it, and carefully take his Bible 
and search for the English reading in each place. When 
he finds the word to sanctify in the English, let him see 
if he can not take another definition, of kindred meaning 
as found under the same division or species of Gesenius's 
definition, and substitute that other meaning for the word 
sanctify. Then let him observe carefully the context, and 
see to what the sanctity indicated by the verb is opposed ; 
whether to ceremonial or moral impurity ; whether to a 
mere disregard for some person or thing ceremonially set 
apart, or to the corruptions of the human soul; then he 
will see the exact sense in which it is to be taken, as 
found in our version of the Bible. 

For illustration : Suppose in looking at the definition, 
as quoted in Argument X, under the Piel species, the 
eye rests on a reference to Lev. xxi, 8, there recorded; 
take the English Bible and turn to this place, and you 
find these words, " Thou shalt sanctify him therefore, for 
he ofiereth the bread of thy God ; he shall be holy unto 
thee; for I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy." 
Here you see the word sanctify is found twice, both in 
the Piel species. Now, search under that species or form 
of this word so found in the definition, and you find it 
means " to Jiold sacred, to regard and treat as holy sub- 
stitute this meaning, in the passage in hand, for the word 
sanctify, and it reads thus : " Thou shalt hold him [the 



Arg. XIV.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 253 

priest] sacred^ therefore, . . . for I the Lord, Avhich 
hold you sacred, am holy." Now, please examine the 
context, and you will also see that it is a priest that is 
spoken of, and not the heart of man, as receiving a work 
of sanctification subsequently to regeneration, in the one 
instance, and that in the other where God is represented 
as the one who sanctifies his people, that sanctification 
consists, simply, in his holding them sacred, in his regard- 
ing and treating them as holy, merely as opposed to the 
heathen nations Avhom he did not so regard. ^' Jacob 
have I loved, but Esau have I hated." This illustration 
will sufiice for all other cases ; for, as before said, every 
place in the Hebrew Bible where this verb is found, it has 
a certain one of the grammatical forms, as given in the 
Lexicon of Gesenius, and so must come under its respect- 
ive form or species to be defined. But our author no 
where defines this verb as synonymous with the work of 
quickening a soul dead in trespasses and sins ; no where 
in the sense of regenerating the soul; no where in the 
sense of taking atvay sin, or of purifying the soul; no 
where in the sense of forming the Divine image in the 
heart. Therefore, it does not mean to cleanse the heart 
by what is called entire sanctification, any where in the 
Hebrew Bible. Then, dear reader, as to the meaning of 
this word, let the words of the Preacher comfort thee : 
"Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over 
wise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself?"* The Hebrews 
had another word to indicate purity of heart, that is, to 
cleanse; namely, nnD, taker, which means to cleanse 
physically, Levitically, and morally. David used this 
word morally when he said, "Purge me with hyssop and 
I shall be clean;" and Ezekiel in his prediction of Mes- 
siah's kingdom : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
you, and ye shall be clean ; from all your filthiness and 
from all your idols will I cleanse you." 

* EecL vii, 16. 



254 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



From the verb Jcadhash we have the noun Jcodhesh, 
" Jioliness, sanctity, and we have no idea that it is any 
where used in the Hebrew Scriptures in the sense of 
moral and internal purity. Our Hebrew lexicographer 
gives it no such signification ; but it is used to indicate 
outward sanctity, as opposed to the violation of any of 
the Divine laws which the Jews were required to keep. 
Further mention of this noun is unnecessary. 



ARGUMENT XV. 

l^hp. KADHOSH. 

This adjective is also derived from the verb Jcadhash, 
to sanctify, or more properl}^, to make holy, and it signifies 
holy. Gesenius thus defines it : " Holy, sacred, sanctus, 
ayioq, ayvoq, properly, pure, clean, free from the defilement 
of vice, idolatry, and other impure and profane things; 
opposed is ^ir\, (hhanejjh,) impure, profane." 

"In fixing the primitive signification of this word, the 
following are classical passages : Lev. xi, 43, sq. — that 
is, sequens, following — where, after the law respecting 
unclean meats, it is said, ye shall not pollute yourselves 
tvith these, that ye should he defiled therewith; 44 . . . 
and he ye holy — sanctus, pure — for I am holy, verse 45. 
So xix, 2, and xx, 26, where the same formula, he ye holy, 
for I am holy, is placed at the beginning and end of a 
section — c. [that is, caput, chapter] xix, 20 — containing 
various lavs against fornication, adultery, incest, idolatry, 
and other like crimes. In Deut. xxiii, 15, after the law 
for removing human filth out of the camp, it is added, 
For Jehovah thy God ivalketh in the midst of thy camp; 
. . . wherefore let thy camp he holy — sanctus, clean — 
that he — God — hehold no unclean thing in thee, and turn 



Arg. XV.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 255 



away from thee. In a sense somewhat varied it is applied, 
{a) To God as abhorring every kind of impurity both 
physical and moral ; see Lev. 11. cc. ; also as the avenger 
of right and justice ; Psa. xxiv, 4, compare verses 2, 3 ; 
Isa. vi, 3, compare verse 5, sq. ; and as the object of fear 
and reverence to men; Psa. xcix, 3-9, cxi, 9, where it is 
coupled with x^fj, nora — that is, fearful, deserving rev- 
erence. Sometimes God is called . . . holy . . . 
spoken of pious men, who are pure and clean from the 
defilement of guilt and sin, so far as it is possible for err- 
ing mortals, Isa. iv, 3 ; then the people of Israel who were 
bound to abstain from, and avoid every kind of impurity. 
Lev. xi, 43-45, xix, 2, see above." Such is the definition 
verbatim of Gesenius, except where the marks of omission 
are given, and one or two words explained in parenthesis, 
and some abbreviations written in full. The words omitted 
do not appear to pertain to this argument in any way. It 
seems the word means holy in its best, most handy, and 
usual signification. 

The question to be decided now is, in what does this 
holiness consist when predicated of man ? If we take the 
passage above referred to, which Gesenius says is " class- 
ical," as to " fixing the primitive signification," we can 
easily arrive at the sense in which a man is to be holy. 
" Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any 
creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make your- 
selves unclean ydi\\ them, that ye should be defiled there- 
by. For I am the Lord your God; ye shall therefore 
sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy ; for I am holy ; 
neither shall ye defile j^ourselves with any manner of 
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am 
the Lord that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, 
to be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am 
holy." 

There is no metaphysical argument needed to show that 
according to the sense of this Scripture, holiness, as 



256 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



applied to man, consists in not making himself abominable 
Tvith any creeping thing," instead of a sanctity — or rather 
purity — of heart above that of regeneration. The verb 
to sanctify, also, in Lev. xi, 44, is in the Hithpa 'hel 
species, and means 'Uo sJioiv ojie^s self holy; that is, pure 
from guilt, to sanctify one's self. Lev. xi, 44." So reads 
Gresenius, quoting the very passage in his definition. 
What is expressed in the adjective Jioly, is expressed in 
its root, the verb, which, in this case, means an act done 
by man himself, and not an act by the Holy Spirit, who 
would be the necessary agent if the holiness here incul- 
cated means entire sanctification, as used by some ; but 
the act is to show one's self holy in the external observance 
of the Divine law. It is worthy of the closest observa- 
tion, that in Lev. xi, 44, our Hebrew verb is found and is 
translated, "Ye shall sanctify yourselves." So do we find 
the adjective derived from it, and it is translated " holy." 
Take notice, also, that the adjective "holy" is applied to 
the Jews in this instance, to qualify them as being in a 
certain moral condition, represented in the passage as the 
result or effect of a certain antecedent act as the cause of 
that efi'ect, which act is that of sanctifying themselves, or 
showing themselves holy, by the abhorrence of every extei> 
nal, tangible object that was filthy to a Jew, according to the 
Divine law. Any convenient English verb with its kindred 
adjective will illustrate this. Take, for example, the verb to 
free. If an individual free himself, he performs a reflex- 
ive act upon himself. As the result or effect thereof, we 
say he is a free man. The adjective free describes him 
as in a certain condition of being, made so by the action 
of the verb to free. Now, according to entire sanctifica- 
tionists, the Holy Spirit is the agent by whom men are 
sanctified, as an inivard work ; but since the verb kadhash, 
to make holy, does not mean to take away sin from the 
heart, to say that a holy man means one every whit pure 
as to heart, in itself as a word, instead of the mere exter- 



Akg. XV.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



257 



nal sign of such an inward purity, is as unreasonable and 
as inaccurate as to say that the Holy Spirit freed the per- 
son who freed himself, granting such freedom to pertain to 
some temporal act done by mere strategy. 

Besides this, the etymology of the Hebrew adjective 
holy, as coming from a verb which does not express the 
act by which the heart is purified, teaches the very same 
sentiment. The adjective kadhosh, holy, is an infinitive 
form of the verb — its root. And, " the infinitive in 
Hebrew is a noun of action, expressing the abstract idea 
of the verb."* Compare, also, the corresponding Greek 
words ayidXuj^ hctgiazo, to make holy, and ayioq^ hagios, 
holy, the former of which, " in the New Testament," says 
Dr. Robinson, means "properly to render ayio^^^'' holy. 
Observe, also, that a Greek verb whose stem ends in a'C, 
az, is imitative in signification, like '^Jwptd^^w, Boriazo, to 
live, talk, sing, or di^ess like the Dorians. "f Now, apply 
this imitative idea of these corresponding words to those 
of the Hebrew, as found in Lev. xi, 44, where God says, 
" Sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy : for i am 
HOLY," and we find that the Hebrew idea of holiness is 
that of imitation of the Divine character, and is external in 
this case, a^ clearly taught; because, by the words under 
consideration, the internal is not indicated any further than 
the fruit supposes and implies the inward work in God's 
people. 

Since the science of language is in our favor, those 
who may be disposed to object to our etymological argu- 
ments, because some have attributed " uncertainty " to 
such reasoning, would do well to bear in mind that we 
use the laws of grammars and lexicons strictly, and the 
fact of these being in our favor is wholly incidental, and 
ought to count some, at least, in the scale of reason, lest 
we not only become infidel to the Bible, but to the very 

*Dr. Nordheimer's Hebrew Grammar, Vol. i, sec. 156. 
f Crosby's Greek Grammar, § 318 c. 

22 



258 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



language in which it was written. Again : Lev. xix, 1, 2 : 
"And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Speak unto all 
the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto 
them, Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am 
holy." In this passage the same doctrine is found. In 
what sense is this hoUness on the part of the children of 
Israel to be taken ? In what respect are we to understand 
it? Is it an extra purity of heart greater than that of 
regeneration, or is it something else? The facts show 
that it is the latter; for, 

1. Gesenius, speaking of this adjective in this particu- 
lar passage, says that it was spoken " of the people of 
Israel, who were bound to abstain from and avoid every 
kind of impurity." 

2. The context bears ample testimony to its being an 
observance of the Divine laws. In verse 3, the fear of 
parents is inculcated : Ye shall fear every man his mother 
and his father." And the Sabbath is mentioned : " Keep 
my Sabbaths." Ln verse 4 idolatry is forbidden : " Turn 
ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods." 
Verse 11 : " Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, nei- 
ther shalt thou profane the name of thy God : I am the 
Lord." Yerse 13 : Thou shalt not defraud thy neigh- 
bor, neither rob him." So we might go on till the pa- 
tience of the reader would be exhausted, to show that 
the context in this chapter teaches that holiness consists 
in keeping the moral law, that it comprises the words of 
the Lord who is represented as speaking to Moses and 
commanding him to tell the children of Israel to be 
"holy," and then proceeds to tell him in what this holi- 
ness consists — a very important point indeed — w'herein he 
mentions several commands of the Decalogue distinctly, 
as above quoted, with some of the ceremonial laws also, 
so that their holiness was to consist in obedience to all 
the commands of Godj whatsoever those commands may 
have been. 



Arg. XV.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 259 



3. Another argument for this view of holiness, on the 
part of the Jews, is founded on the authority of an in- 
spired apostle : " Wherefore gird up the loins of your 
mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is 
to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 
as obedient children not fashioning yourselves according 
to the former lusts in your ignorance : but as he which 
hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of 
conversation : because it is written, Be ye holy ; for I am 
holy." 1 Pet. i, 13-16. In this passage Peter uses the 
very words quoted in Leviticus, and the context shows 
that he is speaking of the moral duties of those Avho are 
already Christians, representing those duties as the fruits 
of their Christianity, and as being in accordance with the 
Divine commands. He forbids them going back, " Fash- 
ioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your 
ignorance; but as he which hath called you is holy, 
so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." That 
is, " mode of life, conduct, deportment." (Greenfield.) 
"Converse, manners of life, walk, conduct." (Dr. 
Robinson.) Such, therefore, is the teaching of the Old 
Testament, as supported by the New, that when a man is 
called ''holy," this adjective which qualifies him as such 
has reference to his mode or manner of life, his walk or 
conduct, and not to his inward spiritual condition in the 
sense of what some have called entire sanctification. And 
be it observed once for all, that since this is the meaning 
of the word " holy " in the Hebrew, and since the Sep- 
tuagint constantly uses the Greek word ayLoq^ hagios, as 
the equivalent for the HebrcAv standing at the head of this 
argument, and since the New Testament invariably uses 
the Greek aycoq, Jtagios, in the same sense, and in quoting 
the passages of the Old Testament, as above seen, where 
the word is found, it never should have been, in our hum- 
ble judgment, translated by the word saint in the New 
Testament, inasmuch as there is a great want of consistency 



260 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



of translation by so doing, since a holy man — in the 
sense above contended for — in the Old Testament dispen- 
sation, and a lioly man, as our version has it in Peter, 
above quoted, are the same, the one passage of Leviticus 
absolutely incorporated into both, and translated alike, 
and we think correctly and consistently in both places. 
But why should it be translated " saint " in so many other 
places, when lioly and holy ones could just as well be used? 
Then we would understand by the term the same thing 
from beginning to end of the Bible, namely, a consistent 
Church relation, consisting in the detestation of all that 
would defile, and in such a manner of life, as to the moral 
law and ecclesiastical usage, as God would be pleased with, 
and that good men would approve. God's meaning is, 
throughout the whole Bible, that his people, of whatever 
dispensation, must not contaminate themselves with the 
filthy and idolatrous nations, who are not his, by doing 
any of their deeds. Dr. Hibbard, in defining the words 
sanctify, etc., makes some very sensible remarks. For 
the present we take a very short extract. He says: 
"The words sanctified, unclean, and holy, therefore, are 
to be understood, not in a civil, or a moral, but in a cere- 
monial sense. In order to understand the import of these 
terms, in this connection, [he is writing on 1 Cor. vii, 14,] 
we must go back to Jewish usage, for the apostle uses 
these words here in their Levitical sense. It is true he 
was writing to a Christian Church in Greece, and that he 
employed the Greek language, but the subject was one 
of Hebrew origin, and the terms were employed in strict 
conformity to Hebrew use."* 

Now, Dr. Hibbard has here said what is applicable to 
these words on which he writes wherever they occur in 
the New Testament. They are all Hebrew tvords in sig- 
nification, and used as such in the Christian dispensation, 
as we will see more and more the further we examine them. 

* Christian Baptism, p. 126. 



Arc. XV.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



261 



It is enough to say that our authors on sanctification 
have actually used the above quoted passage from Peter 
as a proof, in some way, of their peculiar view of the 
question. Rev. Richard Watson uses it in his Theolog- 
ical Dictionary, Article Sanctification, where he, how- 
ever, rather gives it a turn in our favor, but quoting it a 
second time in his definition, he evidently uses it in sup- 
port of an imvard work, which, on a fair exegesis, is not 
tenable, taking the apostle's meaning as the context 
presents it, and his sense, as found in Leviticus, which 
he quotes. Dr. Peck also quotes the words, either of 
Leviticus or Peter — for he gives no reference — in the 
words, " Be ye holy," on page 185 of his book, where he 
is arguing with the Calvinist, in favor of his view of the 
subject, as to its attainableness in this life; therefore, he, 
too, has misapplied the passage. How strange it is that 
our good authors, as I have before objected, have utterly 
overlooked the context in all their writings about what 
they call entire sanctification and Christian perfection! 
Scarcely ever have they observed it. I think Mr. Wes- 
ley, in the "Plain Account," never; Mr. Watson, in 
his ''Institutes," never; and Dr. Peck, perhaps, a little, 
in the forepart of his book ; but as for the rest, we think, 
he has quoted his proofs without proper care. 

Here, as by regular steps, we pass out of the Hebrew, 
and of the Old Testament, and more particularly confine 
our arguments to the New, except by way of reference, 
calling the reader's attention to the fact, that we have 
absolutely failed to find the verb to sanctify, referring to 
the moral act of cleansing the heart, and have also failed 
to find the noun holiness in such a sense of inward purity, 
as well as the adjective Jioly, to qualify such a condition 
of heart. Here we close our Kadhosh Argument. 



262 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOX. [Pakt II. 



A'RGUMENT XVI. 

""Ayco^ H AGIOS. 

This word, as shown from the Epistle of St. Peter, in 
our last argument, is applied to an individual to designate 
him as holy in the sense of keeping the revealed will of 
God as the fruit of justification, or, in a more extended 
sense, of a covenant relation, an ecclesiastical relation, as 
opposed to heathens who have no Church rites. 

AYe find it applied in the New Testament to a great 
many objects, such as things, angels, covenant, Father, 
Scriptures, hands, mount, etc. In this argument we will 
use it where it is applied to men only. "Eor Herod 
feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an 
holy" — hagion. Luke vi, 20. Now, John the Baptist 
was a just man, and Herod knew it, and as a fruit of his 
justified state, he was holy as to law, he did the will of 
God ; for, he was " a man sent from God ;" he came " to 
bear witness of the Light." " As he spake by the mouth 
of his holy [ayiwv, hagion] prophets, which were since 
the world began." Luke i, 70. Here the word is ap- 
plied to the " prophets." But they were men of the 
Jewish period — they "have been since the world began." 
In that period - they were required to keep the moral 
law — all the moral and ceremonial commands of God, as a 
proof and sign of a saved state, of their profession be- 
fore God. This has already been shown to be perfection, 
or holiness. Therefore, when the term ''holy" is used to 
qualify the word "prophets," it designates them as men 
walking in the commandments — ^living according to the 
Divine precepts, as an evidence, not only of regeneration, 
but also of their being God's people, as opposed to 
heathens, who were not. 

" As it is written in the law of the Lord, every male 



Arg. XVI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



263 



that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord." 
Luke ii, 23. Here the word " holy ' ' is predicated of a 
child. This is by a quotation from the Mosaic law — 
Ex. xiii, 1, 2 — " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 
Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth 
the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and 
of beast; it is mine." Now, the w^ord "sanctify," in this 
quotation from Exodus, when examined in the Hebrew, 
is found in the Piel species; it is quoted by Gesenius, 
under that division of the verb tyij^, Jcadhash, to make 
holy, and is defined in these words : " To consecrate . . . 
the first-born." Ex. xiii, 2. 

At the time of the birth of our Lord this Mosaic law 
was in force; hence, in view of Jewish usages, Christ is 
called " her first-born," and mention is made of " the days 
of her purification according to the law of Moses ;" which 
were observed and " accomplished" before "they brought 
him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord." Verse 22. 
But this presentation of him to the Lord was " as it is 
written in the law of the Lord," which law says, " Sanc- 
tify unto me all the first-born ;" and since Gesenius de- 
fines this " to consecrate,^' and since the sanctification 
w^as to be done b}^ man, as a Divine command to him, and 
not by the Almighty, and was to extend to the first-born 
of the BEAST, as well as to human beings, the conclusion 
is inevitable that, when it is said Jesus " shall be called 
HOLY unto the Lord," it means he shall be the one conse- 
crated to the Lord. This is absolutely demonstrated by 
the use of another word of similar or synonymous mean- 
ing in the twelfth verse, where the command is repeated, 
" Thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth 
the matrix." The word " set apart," here, is " cause to 
pass over,^^ in the marginal reading of our Bibles. This 
marginal reading is correct. It is the Hiph' hil of the 
verb 'habhar, to pass over; and in this species 

means to cause to pass, which is equal to " to bring, spec. 



264 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



to offer, as in sacrifice, to consecrate [to God.] Ex. xiii, 
12." Here our author brings out the same meaning, 
to consecrate. The parent causes the first-horn to pass over 
to God, because he has said, "It is mine." A surrender 
of it is made to him. This act of passing the first-born 
over to God is the act by vrhich it was sanctified or con- 
secrated. Therefore, fair reasoning from the Scripture 
shows that "holy" in our text means consecrated. 

"Else were your children unclean, but now are they 
HOLY." 1 Cor. vii, 14. Ulse your children would have 
been brought up heathens, whereas now they are Chris- 
tians." (Wesley's Note.) The uncleanness mentioned, 
therefore, is that of heathenism as opposed to Judaism, 
since the Jews considered the heathens unclean, and the 
word "AoZ^" is opposed to the idea of what the Jews 
called " common^^ — to that uncleanness which the Jewish 
religion held to characterize the heathen. Dr. Hibbard, 
in his work on baptism, argues the meaning of the word 
" holy," in this passage, to a considerable length. I think 
he is correct. The sum of his meaning may be had in 
these words, " I can not, perhaps, render the sense of the 
passage more obvious to the reader than by the following : 
' Else were your children pagans : but now are they [reck- 
oned] holy seed.' "* Again, Dr. Hibbard adopts the fol- 
lowing words from Pool's Annotations, by one of the 
" continuators " of that work: "These are those that are 
called holy, not as inwardly and sanctified, but as rela- 
tively, in the same sense that all the Jewish nation were 
called holy people. '^-f 

Again, in speaking of the words unclean and holy, in 
1 Cor. vii, 14, Dr. Hibbard says, "But let us more directly 
inquire into the meaning of the words unclean and holy. 
'Ay.ddapToq, unclean, according to Schleusner, signifies that 
which is prohibited hy the 3fosaic laio, or from which the 
people of God were required to separate themselves. He 

* Christian Baptism, p. 131. t 1^- P- 1^2. 



Arc. XVT.] rEPvFECTIOX AND SANCTIFICATIOX. 



265 



represents it as often used to denote a pagari, cui alien 
from the worship of the true God^ or one who does not 
belong to the people of God or to the society of Christians, 
It is this last sense we attach to the "word in the passage 
in question ; namely, pagan, alien from the true worship of 
God, etc. So, also, Dr. Robinson says the word is ' spoken 
of persons loho are not Jews, or who do not belong to the 
Christian community,^ and cites this very passage, among 
others, in proof. Groves defines it thus : Impure, unclean, 
defiled unfit for receiving the rites of religion^^^ 

Now, observe, this is the meaning given by the Doctor, 
and proved by good authority, of the word unclean, which, 
in the passage he is examining, is opposed to holy; there- 
fore, the word holy must mean simply a Christian, or one 
favored luith the benefits of the Christian Church and 
Christian communion, as it respects external privileges and 
relations to God, as opposed to what the condition of the 
Gentiles zvas before they tvere brought in and, the middle 
wall of partition broken doivn. 

But we will hear Dr. Hibbard further, since his views 
are exactly to our purpose, and since his work on baptism 
is a standard in our Church, and since he is a good rea- 
soner and original thinker. He continues, " In Acts x, 
14, 28, ay.dfktpToc, akathartos, is used to designate a Gen- 
tile, or ' a man of another nation^ besides the Jews. Thus 
it is elsewhere used. So Isa. lii, 1 : ^ For henceforth 
there shall no more come to thee [Jerusalem] the uncir- 
cumcised and the unclean,' i^pp, a.xddapro':. Here the 
words unclean and uncircumcised are perfectly synony- 
mous, and apply to one and the same description of per- 
sons; namely, all who were not Jews — all Avho were not 
in covenant with God. So, also, an unclean or polluted 
land is a land inhabited by pagans, or idolaters. Thus 
Amos vii, 17 : ' And thou [Israel] shalt die in a polluted 
or unclean land, XD£3, axdOapzoc. This ' polluted land ' 

* Christian Baptism, p. 133. 
'23 



266 



REVIETV OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. [Part II. 



was Assyria. It was in contradistinction from all such 
idolatrous or pagan countries that Canaan was called the 
^ Holy Land.' "When Paul warned the Corinthians to have 
no religious intercourse and fellowship with 'idolaters,' 
' infidels,' and such like persons, who were enemies of God 
and aliens from the true kingdom, he says, ' Touch not 
the [a/.ddaprou^ aJcafJiarfoic] unclean person.' 2 Cor. vi, 17. 
Our English version reads ^ things f but this is unques- 
tionably an error. The apostle was not speaking of things, 
but of j)^^'-sons with whom it was not lawful for a Christian 
to hold any religious fellowship, and he denominates them 
iinclean, using the same word that is used in 1 Cor. vii, 14. 
It is plain, therefore, that when the apostle says, ' Else 
were your children unclean,' it is in perfect accordance 
with the lisus loquendi to understand him to say, ' Else 
were your children pagans, without the covenant.' This 
sense, the advance in his argument and the nature of his 
subject require us to understand. We are confirmed in 
this sense, further, by the force of the next clause, ' Now 
are they holy.^ 'Ayioc, holy, is here used in contrast with 
axdOaproc;, unclean. A hoJg person, in the language of the 
text, is the exact opposite of an unclean person, and vice 
versa. If an unclean person is the same as a heathen, the 
holy person is a Christian. We have seen that the word 
sanctified, as applied to an unbeliever, in the former part 
of the verse, is restricted in its sense by the nature of 
the subject, to signify merely the abohshment of Jewish 
ceremonial distinctions, with regard to clean and unclean 
persons, so as to render it now lawful for a believer and 
unbeliever to dwell together in marriage union, or in any 
other relation innocent in itself. This is perfectly plain. 

''But the natm-e of the subject does not bind us to fix 
the same limited construction on the term holy in the 
concluding part of the passage, and we appeal to the nat- 
ural force of the apostle's argument, and the general 
Scriptural use of the term, in support of the sense above 



Arg. XVI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



267 



given. I will give the reader some examples of the use 
of this word in Scripture. Matt, xxvii, 52: 'And many 
bodies of the [o.ycco^^, hagion\ saints that slept arose.' 
Acts ix, 13: 'Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by 
many of this man, [Saul,] how much evil he hath done to 
thy [aytoLq^ licigiois^ saints at Jerusalem.' See, also, 
chap, xxvi, 10. Acts ix, 32: 'Peter came down also to 
the [aytoo:;^ hagious~\ saints that dwell at Lydda.' Verse 
41 : ' And when he had called the [o^i'ou?] saints, and wid- 
ows, he presented her alive.' Eom. i, 7 : ' Grace to all 
that be in Rome . . . called to be [dyiocg^ hagiois~\ 
saintsJ Rom. xv, 25: 'But now I go unto Jerusalem 
to minister unto the [a^^cocg] saints.' Verse 26 : ' For it 
hath pleased them of Macedonia ... to make a 
contribution for the poor [a^'/oiv] saints at Jerusalem.' 
See also verse 31. Rom. xvi, 2 : ' That ye receive her 
[Phebe] in the Lord as becometh [a^'i'o^v] saints' — that is, 
Christians. Verse 15 : ' Salute . . . all the [ay^auc] 
saints,' etc. 1 Cor. i, 2 : ' . . . to them that are 
called [d/'c'oj?] saints' — that is. Christians. Chap, 
vi, 1 : ' Dare any of you . . . go to law before the 
unjust, and not before the [ayfwv] saints f — that is, Chris- 
tians, the members of the Church. Chap, xiv, 33 : ' God 
is the author of peace, as in all the churches of the [a^'j'wv] 
saints' — Christians. Chap, xvi, 1: 'Now concerning the 
collection for the [a^'c'oy?] saints' — that is. Christians, 
Church members, who are poor. See also verse 15 ; 2 
Cor. i, 1 ; viii, 4 ; ix, 1, 12. 2 Cor. xiii, 13 : ' All the 
[a)'£oj] saints [Christians] salute you.' 

" Besides these passages cited, the word occurs, where it 
is translated saints, about forty-one times in tlie New 
Testament ; the signification in all these places being 
substantially the same. Here, also, I wish the reader to 
understand and appreciate the corroborating testimony 
drawn from the use of the corresponding Hebrew words. 
I have before mentioned that although the apostles spoke 



268 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



for the most part, and wrote wholly in the foreign Greek 
dialect, still they were Hebrews, educated in the Jewish 
religion and customs, and accustomed to think and to 
speak according to the Hebrew idiom. Hence they sought 
out and employed those Greek words that more fitly con- 
veyed Hebrew ideas, and hence we often are obliged to 
resort to the use of certain Hebrew words that were used 
to express the same idea, in order fully to establish the 
sense of the New Testament language. "Aytoq, (Jiagios,) 
holt/, says Dr. Robinson, ' is used every-where, in the 
Septuagint, for i^np, Jcodesh, and i^np, kadosh. Hence, the 
ground idea is pure, dean.' (Greek and English Lexi- 
icon, art. "Aycoq.') 

" Take a few examples. Exod. xix, 6 : ^ Ye shall be 
to me a holi/ nation' — tJ'ng, ayco^^ — that is, a nation of 
saints, a consecrated nation. Exod. xxii, 31 : ' And ye 
shall be holy men unto me ' — ly^p, ayLov — that is, ye 
shall be saints, consecrated men. See, also. Lev. xi, 44, 
45 ; Num. xvi, 3, ei alibi. The Israelites were declared 
a holy people, not because they were all morally holy — 
far from it; but because, by profession, they belonged to 
God, who had separated them from all other nations, and 
sanctified them unto himself by external rites ; because 
they professed the true religion, which many among them 
really attained in an illustrious degree ; and because ' to 
them were committed the oracles of God,' 'the covenant,' 
' and the giving of the law and the promises.' They even 
regarded themselves as holy. Thus they called themselves, 
as in Ezra ix, 2, ' The holy seed [^^p, ayjoc] have min- 
gled themselves with the people of those lands.' So, 
also, Daniel calls them — chap, viii, 24, and xii, 7. I do 
not wish needlessly to multiply examples of the use of 
these words, but I know not how to lay before the more 
uninformed reader a just view of the argument, without 
furnishing at least those above adduced. Nothing can be 
more plain, as appears from the examples adduced, and 



Arg. XVI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



269 



from the general face of Scripture usage, that ayiuq, Jiagios, 
and its corresponding Hebrew, lyip, kodesh, and Si^nj^, 
kadosh, when used substantively, sigaify a worsJtiper of 
God; a person set apart, or devoted to religion, either by 
spiritual sanctification, or external ordinances; a person lolio 
belongs to the community of the true ivorshipers of God, as 
distinguished from an idolater, or an irreligious person; 
a member of the Church of God; a saint; a Christian. 
'^AyLoq^ hagios, then, is frequently used in the New Testa- 
ment in a sense exactly synonymous with Church member, 
as every person knows who has examined the subject; 
and it is a word which is never applied to an unbaptized 
or uncircumcised person. It is in this sense that I con- 
ceive it to be used in 1 Cor. vii, 14. When, in that pas- 
sage, children are declared to be ayta, hagia, they are de- 
clared to be in that state which is exactly contrary to 
paganism or Gentileism. But what is that state which is 
exactly opposite to Gentileism? It is Christian Church 
membership. The unclean person was an alien from the 
law and the covenant — a Gentile. The Jews were called 
the holy, the clean; and after them the Christians were 
also called the holy, the clean, or the saints. The members 
of the Christian Church were the saints, and the saints 
were the members of the Christian Church. 

''When, therefore, Paul affirms that those children who 
had one parent a believer and the other an unbeliever, 
were not ' unclean,^ but ayta^ saints, he is unquestionably 
to be understood as affirming that they were not mere 
Gentiles — aliens from the covenant — ' but fellow-citizens 
with the saints, and of the household of God.' All the 
parts of the apostle's argument conspire to establish this 
meaning; and the antithesis employed and indicated in the 
word a-/AOapToq^ {akatJiavtos^ unclean, demands it, for the 
contrast here is between a p)agan and a Christian. ' Else 
were your children pagans; but now are they Chris- 
tians^ — devoted to God by a Christian rite. When it is 



270 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



said in Luke ii, 23, every first-born male child ' shall be 
called ay toy ~w y.upiip^ lioly, ov cousecrated to the Lord,' the 
meaning of this holiness or consecration was, that the child 
Avas to be devoted to God in the most absolute sense, re- 
quiring redemption in order to entitle the parents to re- 
sume it, even for protection, support, and education. 
And although this consecration was of a peculiar kind, 
evidently higher than the ordinary idea of Church mem- 
bership, still, it illustrates the force of which the word in 
question is capable, even when used in a Levitical sense. 
When the apostle says 'the unbelieving husband is sanc- 
tified to the wife,' he intends only that degree of sanctity 
that renders it ceremonially lawful for her to live with 
him ; but when he says ' your children are holy, sanctified, 
or consecrated,' he means that they belong to the Chris- 
tian community, and if he does not affirm their baptism 
directly, he affirms their relation to the Church, which 
implies the fact of their baptism : he recognizes, by nec- 
essary implication, both the principle and the fact of in- 
fant baptism. 

" He says exactly what we might suppose him to say, 
on the supposition of the universal practice of infant bap- 
tism. Every Jew would have understood him as affirm- 
ing the Church membership of infants. He says of the 
children of Christian parents, just what the Jews would 
have said of their own children, when they would express 
their covenant, or Church relation — he says they are holy. 
It was, to their minds, an explicit declaration of Church 
relation, in contradistinction from the Gentile, or heathen 
state ; and, I need hardly add, that precisely as the Cor- 
inthian disputants, in this Jewish controversy, must have 
understood these words, in the same manner must we un- 
derstand and apply them."^ 

From this forcible and exegetical reasoning of this able 
writer, of acknowledged authority in our Church, we see 

* Christian Baptism, pp. 133-138. 



Arg. XVI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



271 



that he uses these terms — especially do I refer to the 
word ayioq^ Jioly, in the very sense in which I designed in 
the onset to present them, not knowing, indeed, when I 
began this work, that he had so written on the word, al- 
though having read his excellent work on Christian bap- 
tism, some years ago. We conclude, therefore, that 
ayioq^ hagios, perhaps no where in the New Testament, or 
its equivalent, li'njj, kadJwsh, means holi/, as applied to 
the heart, to necessarily indicate a moral change therein, 
but the word must be taken in the Levitical, or ceremonial 
sense, as indicating one in some way consecrated^ or made 
holy hy ecclesiastical rite. To be holy is to he in a relative 
condition of holiness^ and this holiness is always opposed 
to, or contrasted with, heathenish contaminations. For 
Peter, in saying to the Church, "Be ye holy," 1 Peter i, 
15, gives this command as an act of Christian duty, op- 
posed to their going back to heathenish vices, which, in 
verse 14, he expresses in the words, " not fashioning 
yourselves according to the former lusts in your igno- 
rance." 

The sum of all that we have said on this word is told 
in Lev. xx, 25, 26, in the Lord's own words : " Ye shall 
therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, 
and between unclean fowls and clean ; and ye shall not 
make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any 
manner of Hving thing that creepeth on the ground, which 
I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall 

BE holy unto me; for I THE LORD AM HOLY, AND HAVE 
SEPARATED YOU FROM OTHER PEOPLE, THAT YE SHOULD BE 

MINE." Here the words sJ^nj^, Jcadhosh, and aycog, hagios, 
are used in verse 26, and when taken in connection with 
verse 25, as we have quoted them, no sensible person 
can mistake the sense. The holiness consists in separa- 
tion from the heathen and heathenish customs. What 
else does the phrase, "I . . . have separated you 
FROM other people," mean? This same holiness is also 



272 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



required in the Christian dispensation, as any one can see 
who will read 2 Cor. vi, 14-18, where St. Paul forbids 
the Christians to be unequally yoked with unhelievers, in- 
fidels^ etc., and he plainly teaches, just as stated in Le- 
viticus, that their holiness, their sanctification, yea, their 
ejitire sanctification, consists in such separation from 
heathens ; for, he says. Come out from among them, 
and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean — 
heathen. I say this separation is eritire sanctification, 
which the advocates of this doctrine, as an inward work, 
will not dare to deny, for two reasons : 1. Because the 
passage just referred to in 2 Cor. vi, is undivided as to 
the subject-matter till we go on and include the first verse 
of chapter vii, which verse is an exhortation enforcing the 
doctrine of separation from heathens, as found in verses 
14-18, of the sixth chapter. This seventh chapter be- 
gins, "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, 
let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh 
and spirit, [disposition,] perfecting holiness in the fear of 
God." 2. Mr. Wesley, on page 51 of his " Plain Account 
of Christian Perfection," asks the following question : " Q. 
Is there any clear Scripture promise of this, that God will 
save us from all sin ?" On page 52 he answers, " There 
is;" and quotes in full 2 Cor. vii, 1, as one of the pas- 
sages in proof. Rev. Richard Watson — Institutes, Vol. 
ii, chap, xxix — quotes the same passage in proof of the 
same internal work of entire sanctification. Dr. Peck, in 
his "Direct Scripture Proofs" of entire sanctification, 
on page 207 of his abridged work on Christian Perfection, 
quotes the very same passage. All these standard au- 
thors use the text in question, in the sense of teaching 
an inward blessing, distinct from, and subsequent to re- 
generation. This is the sense in which they hold entire 
sanctification ; for, says Dr. Peck, " To the doctrine that 
entire sanctification is a distinct work, and subsequent 
to justification, we, as ministers of the Methodist Episco- 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



273 



pal Church, have fully set our seal on our full induction 
into the ministerial office."* Therefore the "distinct 
work, and subsequent to justification," of our good au- 
thors, on a close investigation, consists in external^ out- 
ward, and ceremonial separation, as God's people, in 
distinction from those who are not God's. This proof- 
text, however, will be treated of in its proper place, but 
justice to our subject demands a mention of it here in 
part, as the subject-matter of the passage connected with 
it, as a context, is identical with the general Scriptural 
meaning and force of the adjective aytoq^ (hagios,) Jwly, 



ARGUMENT XVII. 

''Ay I d^ct) H AGI AZ O . 

Having found the meaning of aycoq in the last argu- 
ment, as used in the Septuagint and New Testament, to 
be Ao/y, in an out\Yard and Levitical sense, as opposed to 
what was held to be a transgression of the moral code, 
and also opposed to all that was ceremonially unclean, our 
next argument is to consist in an inquiry as to the sig- 
nification and use of dycd^w, hagiazo, a derivitive of aycog^ 
which occurs twenty-nine times in the New Testament. 
Twenty-six of these it is translated in our^version by the 
verb to sanctify, namely: Heb. ix, 13; Romans xv, 16; 
1 Cor. vi, 11; Eph. v, 26; 1 Thess. v, 23; 1 Tim. iv, 5; 
Heb. ii, 11, twice ; Heb. x, 10, 14 and 29 ; Heb. xiii, 12 ; 
Acts XX, 32; xxvi, 18; 1 Cor. i, 2; Jude 1; 1 Cor. vii, 
14, twice ; 1 Pet. iii, 15 ; Matt, xxiii, 17 ; xxiii, 19 ; 2 Tim. 
ii, 21; John x, 36; xvii, 17, and 19 twice. Twice it is 
translated by the word halloived, and both in the Lord's 
prayer — Matt, vi, 9 ; Luke xi, 2. Once it is translated by 

* Christian Perfection, p. 198. 



274 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the phrase, ^^let he lioly^' — Rev. xxii, 11. Now, in order 
to arrive at the exact meaning of this verb, as we find it 
in all these places in the New Testament, in the very 
sense in which the inspired writers intended to be under- 
stood, a few observations preliminary to the exegesis of 
each passage separately, are, in our opinion, absolutely 
necessary. We notice, 

I. That ayid^a) must he vieived from a Sehrew stand- 
point in order to arrive at its true meaning wherever used 
in the New Testament. That is to say, we must treat it 
just as if the New Testament had been written originally 
in Hebrew, and as if we had the Hebrew verb ti^^j^ 
kadhash^ instead of dytd'^w. This we argue, 1. Because 
dytdXM is a word of Hebrew origin and usage. That is, 
the Jews coined it to suit their own purpose and to con- 
vey their own thoughts. The last period of the HebrcAv, 
as a spoken language, and known as its iron age, ended 
with the seventy years' captivity in Babylon. After this 
their language was a mixture of Chaldee and a waning 
Hebrew, which latter they soon lost. A period of about 
five hundred years intervenes from this to the time of 
Christ, during which the priests and Levites cultivate the 
Hebrew as a learned language for the purpose of ex- 
pounding the law and the prophets to the people. In 
the mean time the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the 
Hebrew Scriptures, is prepared, so called from the Latin 
word Septuaginta, seventy, because, as is supposed, it was 
the work of seventy, or seventy-two learned Jews; or, as 
some think, it was, perhaps, the work of a less number, 
and received the sanction of the Sanhedrim. This version 
of the Old Testament was made for the benefit of the 
Egyptian Jews about 286 years B. C. It was held in 
the highest authority by the Jews scattered over Pales- 
tine, and finally among Christians. In very many in- 
stances it is quoted in the New Testament both by our 
Lord and his apostles instead of the Hebrew, so that the 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



275 



opinion generally prevails that this version was the Bible 
of the apostles. 

This translation being prepared at the date above given, 
it is plain that the Greek language had passed the zenith 
of its glory. The writers in the Attic and the Ionic dia- 
lects of this language, by far the most refined, had flour- 
ished considerably before the date of the Septuagint. If 
we take a period of about 150 years, counting back as far 
as 500 years B. C, and coming down to 350, we may say 
that we include the golden age of Greek literature ; 
when, in their best dialects, there were such writers of 
history as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenoplion ; in ora- 
tory, such as Demosthenes, ^schines, and Isocrates; in 
philosophy, Aristotle and Plato; in poetry, Aristophanes, 
iEschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. The very latest of 
these seems to have been the orator iEschines, Avho is 
said to have flourished about the year 346 B. C. This 
dates about sixty years before the Septuagint. " The 
Attic dialect became the standard language of the Greeks, 
and, as such, was adopted by the educated classes in 
all the States. It became the general medium of inter- 
course, and, with a few exceptions, . . . the universal 
language of composition. This diff'usion of the Attic 
dialect was especially promoted by the conquests of the 
Macedonians, who adopted it as their court language. As 
its use extended, it naturally lost some of its peculiarities 
and received many additions, and thus diff'used and modi- 
fied, it ceased to be regarded as the language of a par- 
ticular State, and received the appellation of the common 

DIALECT or LANGUAGE."* 

" The Greek, as the common lan2;uao;e of the civilized 
world, was employed in the translation of the Jewish 
Scriptures, and the composition of the Christian. When 
so employed, by native Jews, it naturally received a strong 
Hebrew coloring, and, as a Jcav speaking Greek was called 

*■ Crosby's Greek Grammar, ^ 4. 



276 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Fart II. 



"EXXvjvcffrrjg^ Hellenistes, from kXXr^vL^w, hellenizo, to speak 
Greek, this form of the language has been termed the 
Hellenistic, or by some the ecclesiastical dialect."* 

Now, the word d^^id^oj, hagiazo, on which we write in 
this argument, which is found twenty-nine times in the 
New Testament, is not, strictly speaking, a Greek word; 
that is, as to its use and meaning, but it is altogether 
Hebrew, the sole fact excepted, that it is written and ex- 
ists in Greek letters. For we may safely say that the 
Greek language, as used in its best dialects and its most 
refined state of cultivation, existed for five hundred years 
or more before its decline into the common or ecclesi- 
astical dialect in which the Septuagint and New Testa- 
ment were written. During this long time not one single 
writer, of all that have come down to us, ever used the 
w^ord ayidXw^ liagiazo, in those classic writings. Dr. Rob- 
inson says, it is " not found in Gi^eek writers, hut often in 
Septuagint for ^i^^, kadhash.'' Hence the word had not 
an existence, as a Greek word, so far as extant Greek 
writers inform us, previous to the writing of the Septua- 
gint. It seems, therefore, plain that those learned Jews 
who wrote the Septuagint, who understood Hebrew and 
the common Greek dialect, then a living and spoken lan- 
guage among the educated classes and in the courts, had 
710 word in that language with which to convey the 
Hebrew idea contained in wi^, kadhash. Hence, as be- 
fore said the presumption seems inevitable that they 
coined this word to suit their purpose corresponding to the 
Hebrew idea. This presumption is strengthened if we 
proceed a step further in our investigation. The question 
naturally arises. If the writers of the Septuagint coined 
our word, from what did they coin it? This seems easily 
seen, for the root of dycd'Cco is aycuq, Jiagios, defined in the 
former argument, and found in classic Greek before the 
WTiting of the Septuagint. This word aycu^ is itself 

* Crosby's Greek Grammar, ^ 8. 



Aug. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



277 



derived from the noun a^oq, hagos, any matter of religious 
awe^^ " an expiatory sacrifice/^ a word used by Sophocles 
Antigone 775. This, also, was before the time of the 
Septuagint. This noun, again, is derived from the verb 
a^cD, or a!^ofj.at, " to loorsliip,'^'^^ ^' to stand in aive o/, dread, 
especially the gods."f It seems from this that there is in 
the Greek root as far back as we can trace it, as found, 
too, in several other verbs of the same apparent stem, 
the idea of reverence or ivorsldp. And, so far as ety- 
mology is concerned, the verb a-yiaXco may be derived im- 
mediately from the noun ayoq^ an expiatory sacrifice, which 
is not an unreasonable thing, since Greek verbs whose 
stems end in aX and are derived from both nouns and 
adjectives. These verbs thus ending are also imitative in 
their character, as dwpidH^w, ^' to imitate the Dorians in life, 
maimers, dialect,'' etc. These Dorians were the w^orship- 
ers of a god called Doros, which they supposed to be their 
mystic progenitor. Now, when we take into consideration 
the fact that the God of the Hebrew people taught them 
to imitate him, in the sense of hating sin and loving mercy, 
saying, Ye shall be holy : for I the Lord your God 
AM holy" — Lev. xix, 2 — where the context shows that 
this holiness consisted in their outAvard good deportment 
as opposed to idolatry — compare, also, Eph. v, 1, FhtaOs 
oov tjAiiTiraL rob dsoby become ye therefore imitators of God, 
where the imitation is to consist in walking in love — 
verse 2 — may we not reasonably and legitimately con- 
clude that when 'the learned Jews, well acquainted with 
the Greek language, undertook to write the Septuagint, 
they would naturally coin a word from some Greek root 
which would give the idea of luorship, and build the word 
in such a form as Avould afford the conception of imitation'^ 
If this supposition is correct, which really to us seems 
consistent, and if ayoq, hagos, an expiatory sacrifice, be 
taken as the root of dytd'Coj, hagiazo, primarily it would 

* Grove's Greek Lexicon. f Licldell & Scott's Greek Lexicon. 



278 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



mean to imitate tliat sacrifice; but the Jew held this 
object of imitation in his mind to be the Messiah who 
shouhl become the great sacrifice for sin. Is it not likely, 
therefore, that they coined this word as Greeks, skilled 
in the language, so as to express imitation of their God, 
who by means of " expiatory sacrifice " required them to 
imitate him and assimilate his likeness ? 

Now, as to this much of this argmPxent, we would have 
the reader to bear in mind that it is not depending ahso- 
lutcly on the query as to how the Jews came by this verb 
that had not existed in the classics. For let it have been 
derived from whatsoever source, it is sufiicient for us to 
know that it is only found in the ecclesiastical dialect — that 
it never had an existence ^:>reviozfS to the writing of the 
Septuagint. The history of the word, in part, rather than 
mere etymology, has been our aim, because of its bearing 
on the impending question. Hence, one of two things ap- 
pears incontrovertible — the word, as to meaning, is either 
Hebrew or Greek. But it can not be the latter, because it 
is not known to have existed before the time of the Sep- 
tuagint, which is supposed to have been written in a very 
short period of time. The tradition of one Aristeas sup- 
poses it to have been made in seventy days, while the re- 
ceived opinion is, that it was prepared in the space of two 
years, while Ptolemy Lagus and his son, Philadelphus, 
shared the Egyptian throne. When words begin to be 
adopted into a language, they are known to receive their 
sanction by degrees, and are used at first quite rarely, and 
afterward they become more common — -just the same as 
any other newly-introduced thing. 

But as to this word; it has foffed into being in two 
years' time, has received constant and almost regular use, 
as the equivalent in the Septuagint, of the Hebrew lyip, 
Imdhash, although never known to have had an existence 
before. Moreover, in perhaps every passage of Scripture 
in the New Testament, where the word occurs, where the 



Arc. XYII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



279 



context and scope of those passages are plain, so as to af- 
ford any light at all on the impending question, it is a term 
that will ALWAYS be found in some way connected with, or 
illustrative of, Hebrew customs and ideas. It has some 
reference, in every instance, so far as a true understanding 
of such passages can be ascertained, to the rites and cere- 
monies of the Jews, as much so as the word " circumcision " 
has. This foct is openly acknowledged, to a very consid- 
erable extent, by entire sanctificationists themselves, who 
in their comments on the word, in a majority of cases, in- 
terpret it according to the Hebrew usus loquendi, as we 
will very shortly inform the reader. 

Therefore, its sudden appearance, its constant use, both 
in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, its non-exist- 
ence previous to the ecclesiastical dialect of the Greek, the 
fact that it almost invariably corresponds to the Hebrew 
tyiji, JcadhasJi, and its intimate connection with the same 
Jewish ideas as those connected with ty'lj^, Jcadhash, actu- 
ally compel us to regard it as the representative of a He- 
brew idea in a Greek dress. We, therefore, naturally con- 
clude that dycd^o), Jiagiazo, does not, and can not signify to 
cleanse the iyiward mail morally, since the Hebrew Lexicon 
of Gesenius, translated by Dr. Robinson — see Argument X, 
objection 2 — does not give it any such meaning, and since 
the Hebrew usus loquendi affords no such example of the 
word. 

2. That cz/^a'Cw, Jiagiazo, must be viewed from a Hebrew 
stand-point, we observe that all theologians, as far we are 
informed, admit by their use of the term in their com- 
ments, sermons, and lexicons, that it is taken in the sense 
of the Hebrew t^^^j^, JcadhasJi, that is, in the ceremonial or 
Levitical sense, at least sometimes in the New Testament ; 
a fact so well known and so plain that no quotation from 
such writers will be made in proof of this declaration. 
Now, if w^e follow the Hebrew when we give our w'ord a 
ceremonicd meaning, a difficulty arises to thwart the path 



280 



REVIEW OF WESLETAX PERFECTION. [Part II. 



of controversy with those who hold that it means to cleanse 
morally the inward man ; for to obtain such a meaning, we 
must either go to the Hebrew or to the Greek; if to the 
former, such a signification i% not found either in the 
Lexicon or in any Hebrew passage containing the word; 
if we go to the latter, the term is not found in any class- 
ical writer. Therefore, since it is taken in the ceremonial 
sense by entire sanctificationists themselves sometimes 
where it occurs in the New Testament, since the Septua- 
gint evidently designed to embalm the Hebrew idea in 
Greek characters, and since the word, as Greek, did not 
exist before to give the notion of a moral, internal signi- 
fication, those who hold it in this sense should either make 
it known where such a sense comes from, or the Christian 
world should acknowledge them a debt of gratitude in 
tendering them a joint patent for the idea. 

3. Analogies as to other words of Hebrew meaning 
found in the New Testament abundantly prove, so far as 
there is proof from analogies, that we must look at dyidZio^ 
Jiagiazo, through Hebrew spectacles, in order to arrive at 
its true meaning, {a) The word opOp{!:w^ {orthrizo^ to rise 
early — Luke xxi, 38, and Septuagint, Gen. xix, 27 — is a 
verb which fully illustrates the one in hand. This word, 
says Dr. Winer, in his Idioms of the Language of the 
New Testament, § 2, ''seems to be exclusively an ele- 
ment of the popular language, and is not found in any 
profane Greek writer." And in the same section on the 
"-Basis of the Diction of the Neiv Testament,^^ under the 
letter (e), where he is showing the changes made in the 
Greek language of the common or ecclesiastical dialect, 
by the writers of the Septuagint and of the New Testa- 
ment, he says, "Entirely new words and formulas were 
constructed, mostly by composition." Under this state- 
ment he has given dpdpiZco, (foXay.'Zoj^ (phulaJcizo,) to im- 
prison, with many others too tedious to mention. Of 
this list, Winer continues to speak thus : " That the above 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



281 



register contains many words which were formed either 
by the Jews, who spoke the Greek, or by the New Testa- 
ment authors themselves — especially Paul, Luke, and the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews — according to an 
ANALOGY which then prevailed, can not be denied. Com- 
pare especially dpopt^siv, (□'^t^'n, hisJikwi)^ Now, this 
very eminent author tells us it can not he denied that 
these words were formed according to an analogy ivliich 
then prevailed. What analogy he refers to we are not 
able to say, unless something pertaining to the imitation 
of the Hebrew. The word now under consideration is an 
imitative verb derived from dpOpo^, (orthros,) dag-break^ 
and signifies to imitate the day; hence, " 7'ise earlg.^^ 
This seems quite probable when it is observed that with- 
out the necessity of "forming" dpOpiXio, (orthrizo,) to arise 
early, they had dpopeuo)^ orthreuo, of the Attic dialect and 
of the very same meaning, with perhaps this one excep- 
tion: there does not seem to be any of the idea of imi- 
tation in this latter, for it simply means to rise early, or 
he ivakeful; but the former not only means to rise earlg, 
but also to come early, under the idea of attending to 
some work early in the morning, as, Luke xxi, 38 : " All 
the people came early in the morning to him," etc. This 
verb corresponds to the Hebrew D3"^', (shakam,) to rise 
early in the morning. It is very likely that the writers 
of the Septuagint "formed" their word to imitate this 
Hebrew one, with a view to the performance of some 
deed at an early hour of the day, or of going on a jour- 
ney; for, says Gesenius, "The primary signification is 
probably to load up camels and other beasts of burden, 
wdiicli among the nomades is done very early in the morn- 
ing." Again he says, "Tb get up early to any place, to 
go early, Cant, vii, 13 ;" where our English version reads, 
" Let us get up early to the vineyards." Now, when 
there is a verb already mentioned similar to this one, and 

used in the pure Greek age, but wanting the exact idea 

24 



282 REVIEW OE TTESLEYAX PERFECTIOX. [Part II. 



as to imitation, is it any wonder tliat the Jew acquainted 
with the Hebrew should coin another on a proper " anal- 
ogy," which would exactly embalm the Hebrew idea? 

Besides ^hat is said on the formation of new words to 
express thoughts in the vernacular tongue, we will add 
fui'ther testimony of great men : " The writers of the 
Kew Testament further applied the Greek language to 
subjects on which it had never been employed by native 
Greek writers. No native Greek had ever written on 
Jewish affairs, nor on the Jewish theology and ritual. 
Hence the Seventy, in their translation, had often to em- 
'ploy Gi'eelc words as the signs of things and ideas icliich 
heretofore had been expressed only in Hebrew. In such a 
case, they could only select those Greek words which 
most nearly corresponded to the Hebrew; leaving the 
different shade or degree of signification to be gathered 
by the reader from the context. Thus, to express the 
idea of the Hebrew DiSa?, (shalom,) welfare, as a word of 
salutation or farewell. They employ the Greek word 
ecprjvT), eirene, just as we use the word peace, in the same 
way and for the same reason. Similar is soXoyiw^ eulo- 
geo, for Hebrew jy^, (berek,) to bless; in Greek writers, 
only to speak tvell of. Thus far the path was indeed al- 
ready broken for the writers of the New Testament. But 
beyond this, they were to be the insti'uments of making 
known a new revelation, a new dispensation of mercy to 
mankind. Here was opened a wide circle of new ideas 
and new doctrines to be developed, for which all human 
language was as yet too poor; and this poverty was to 
be done away, even as at the pfresent day on the discovery 
and culture of a new science, chiefly by enlarging the sig- 
nification and application of words already in use, rather 
than by the formation of new ones.^'^^ This quotation in- 
sinuates that neiv words were brought into use by the 
Kew Testament writers. althouo:h he does not sav it in so 

^Dr. Robinson's Preface to his Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 7. 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



283 



many "sf^rds. Notice the words in italics. And we have 
already quoted from Winer, where he actually says they 
did form new words. The neiv ideas and new doctrines to 
he developed, of which Dr. Robinson speaks, really make 
an. absolute necessity for new terms to convey the same 
to the minds of men in a language not having them be- 
fore. Many other words might here be introduced as 
analogous proof to our purpose, but we forbear. 

Now, if the reasoning of those greatest of Biblical 
scholars and linguists, from whom we have quoted, shows 
us that the Ncav Testament writers were compelled, from 
necessity, to invent words on the ground of analogy, to 
suit their purpose ; when we bear in mind that the 
word ayid'^uj, (hagiazo,) to make holy, did not exist till found 
in the Septuagint, and then in the New Testament, and 
that in the pure Greek that had previously existed, they 
had dyiffrebu), (Jiagisteiio,) to perform sacred rites, to he holy, 
or to purify, must we not conclude that this word either 
did not suit the Hebrew idiom, or else that, as they had 
not, as Dr. Robinson says, learned Greek from books, it 
had been lost as a living word, and so the spoken, or 
common dialect, wanting it, they made 6.YidX,o), hagiazo, as 
a substitute for what the spoken language wanted to con- 
vey the Hebrew idea? In fact. Dr. Winer comes very 
near making a remark on the precise word in question, 
so near it, indeed, that he makes it on the root, which re- 
mark may be fairly construed into our favor. In section 
3, of his "Idioms of the Language of the New Testa- 
ment," containing the " Hebrew- Aramaean Complexion of 
the New Testament Diction,^^ he says : " Many Greek 
words are used by the New Testament writers with a 
very direct reference to the Christian system, as technical 
religious expressions ; so that from this arises the third 
element of the New Testament diction; namely, the 
peculiarly Christian. . . . Compare especially the 
words . . . ol ayiot, [for Christians]." Here he, no 



284 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



doubt, uses the root ayioq^ liagios, in the general Christian 
sense, to express a covenant relation, a Church member- 
ship, just as argued in the former argument, and as con- 
tended for by Dr. Hibbard, as we have there quoted 
him. But d/td^o), hagiazo, literally signifies to make one 
■what the root is, that is, to make one aytov, (hagion,) holy, 
or as Dr. Winer says, a Christian, in the ecclesiastical or 
professional sense, as opposed to heathens. How rational 
the conclusion, then, since the root ayiot, hagioi, existed 
before, which they used for Christians, and since the de- 
rivative oyid^o), hagiazo, did not exist, that they must, from 
sheer necessity, invent, coin, or '^form " a word, as it is, to 
express that act by which one is made a Christian ! Con- 
sistency seems to demand that these considerations should 
have some weight in this argument, and we submit them 
to the contemplation of those who are anxious for the 
truth. 

4. As a further proof that we must regard ayidZio as 
Hebrew, in signification, it is proper to observe that there 
are very many words and phrases in the New Testament, 
on account of its mixed dialect, that are of Jewish origin 
entirely, and that no man can possibly interpret or under- 
stand only as he does it through a Hebrew medium. 
Thus the words aTzlayyvi^zadai, ''Ho feel pity, ^Uo he moved 
with pity,'' answering to the Hebrew onn, ^Uo have mercy, 
compassion upon any one, to pity f' and avai'^sfiarC^scy, 'Ho 
hind hy a curse or execration; to curse, to devote,'' cor- 
responding to, and imitating the Hebrew □'"'nnj "^o de- 
vote to destruction, i. q., to utterly destroy, to exterminate," 
and Tzdaia, the passover, corresponding to the Hebrew npi3, 
(pesahh,) passover, and imitated in almost exactly the same 
letters. These words seem to have been all "formed" in 
the ecclesiastical dialect for the imitation of Hebrew 
thoughts, and how are they to be explained independent 
of the Hebrew language ? Are they not Hebrew words 
in Greek characters ? 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



285 



II. We hold that there need be but one meaning given 
to the Hebrew K^ip, kadhash, and which alone will con- 
stantly apply to the Greek ayiaXio, hagiazo, in the twenty- 
nine places mentioned; since, according to the inspired 
views of the New Testament writers, they designed to 
preserve the one exact Hebrew idea in the Greek verb; 
and if this will carry out, our view, in regarding the 
Greek word from a Hebrew stand-point, is not only de- 
monstrated, but those of another opinion, who hold that 
the word means to cleanse the soul morally, must give up 
the entire argument from alpha to omega in favor of 
their second work of an inward nature subsequent to re- 
generation. 

Now, reader, you will please turn back to Argument 
X, objection 2, and see the definition of tyip, kadhash, 
as given in Dr. Robinson's Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon. 
The first place where he gives it with examples is Kal, 
No. 2, where he predicates of it the neuter idea of ex- 
istence in a state of holiness, that is, of ceremonial or ex- 
ternal, or if you prefer Levitical holiness, such as indicated 
a covenant relation, and so he defines it, " To he holy.'' 
Now, observe, that in every example which he gives under 
this No. 2 of Kal, it may be defined by the one idea and 
phrase given. Thus he first quotes Is. Ixv, 5, and trans- 
lates it, "Jam holi/ unto thee.'' English version: "I am 
holier than thou." So Ex. xxix, 37, " Whatsoever touch- 
eth the altar shall be holy." And the same expression in 
XXX, 29. So we may translate all the examples under 
No. 2 in Kal. We will now apply this meaning in the 
Niph'hal species, which is passive of the Kal, and which 
he defines, " To he regarded and treated as holy." He 
quotes as proof. Lev. x, 3. English version : " I will be 
sanctified in them that come nigh unto me." Hebrew: 
^"^•P?? ekkadhesh,) I will he regarded as holy, etc. 

Leviticus xxii, 32, English : " I will be hallowed 
among the children of Israel." Hebrew : 'j^ti'i^pJ, {nik- 



286 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



dashti,) I will he regarded and treated, as holy, etc. 
Ezek. XX, 41, English: "I will be sanctified in you be- 
fore the heathen." Gesenius would have it, I will sJiow 
myself holy in you," etc. But since the Hebrew form is 
exactly the same as in the last passage, and since the 
sense is the same, there seems no reason, at all, why we 
should not translate, I will he regarded and treated as 
HOLY, or, / will he esteemed or made holy. Any phrase 
accommodated to the voice or species of the Hebrew that 
has in it the word " lioly^^ is all that we mean by one^ 
regular meaning of this verb. Gesenius' s w^ay of trans- 
lating in this last instance favors us in this particular. 
The very same Hebrew form is also found in Ezek. xxviii, 
25, which he quotes. And Ezek. xxxvi, 23, English: 
"I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." He- 
brew : 'li'lj^nz, {hliikkadli shi^) In my heing regarded as 
holy in you before their eyes. He also quotes Ezek. 
xxxviii, 16, English: "I shall be sanctified in thee, 
Gog." Hebrew, exactly as the last given. Likewise, 
Ezek. xxxix, 27, English : " I am sanctified in them." 
Hebrew, the same as in Lev. xxii, 32, above. Ezek. 
xxviii, 22, English : I shall be sanctified in her." He- 
brew, the same as the last. Num. xx, 13, English : " He 
was sanctified in them." Hebrew: tyij^:, (yikJcadJiesh,) 
He ivas regarded holy, etc. He quotes Isa. v, 16, En- 
glish: ''God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteous- 
ness." Hebrew : (nikdasJi,) Shall he regarded 
HOLY, etc. Surely that being in the first part of the 
clause emphatically called God that is holy, designs 
that men shall regard him as being just what he IS. 
Hence the passage should be translated consistently and 
say, shall he regarded holy. Is there not a want of con- 
sistency in our English version, because it uses words in 
our language not kindred, to translate words in the same 
clause which are kindred in the Hebrew ? Finally, in the 
Niph'hal species he quotes Ex. xxix, 43, English: 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



287 



^' And the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory." 
Hebrew, the same as the last, and may, with as much 
consistency and good sense, be translated, shall he made 
HOLY, as with any other translation. Gesenius would 
have, shall he consecrated^ which is the same in sense. 
This completes all Gesenius's proof-passages in Niph'hal. 

We will now take Piel. Under this species our author 
makes three divisions of his definition, with examples to 
each. In No. 1, to hold sacred, to regard and treat as 
holy. In No. 2, to proiioitnce holy, to sanctify. Under 
No. 3, to consecrate. But these are all what he regards 
as a classification of the meanings. For before these di- 
visions he gives the signification of Piel, in a general 
w^ay, thus : To make holy, to sanctify.''^ Now, it is 
held in this argument that every proof-passage that he 
gives under Piel, whether in Nos. 1, 2, or 3, may be de- 
fined by the one phrase — make holy. We Avill examine 
his proof-quotations. 

{a) Deut. xxxii, 51, English: ''Ye sanctified me not 
in the midst of the children of Israel." Hebrew: 
D^7)i.''!?p, (Jciddashtem,) Ye made me not holy in the midst, 
etc. Septuagint: ^Ilyidcrars, hegiasate. 

(h) Lev. xxi, 8, English : " Thou shalt sanctify him 
[the priest] therefore : ... he shall be holy unto 
thee : for I the Lord which sanctify you am holy." Here 
the Hebrew in the Piel is found twice int^3p, kiddashto, 
and UDyj-\^jp^ (m'kaddishkem,) Thou shalt make him holy 
he SHALL BE HOLY (ii'ij^, kadhosh) unto 
thee: for I the Lord which make you holy, am 
kadhosh^ holy. Is not this the most rational translation, 
because the adjective holy is derived from the verb which 
we should always render with its proper voice or species 
by the definition make holy? Of course, if the Jews 
would ynake holy their priest, in their regards toward hira, 
he would then be to them holy; that is, the adjective 
must express the state or condition of the priest, in relation 



288 EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II, 

to them, after he has received the action of the verb. 
If they had blessed the priest, he ^ould then have been 
to them a Messed priest ; if they 7iad cursed him, he would 
then have been to them a cursed priest; if they had 
wounded him, he -vN ould then have been to them a wounded 
priest. Let us translate by analogy, especially when it 
looks so much more consistent. Septuagint : Kat ay.dasK; 

aurou . . . ayioq sffrai ; on ayio^ iycb xop:o'^ 6 ayidZoJV 

aoToug, and thou shalt make him holt : . . . holy shall 
he he : for I the Lord am holy, tlie one making them holy. 

(c) Ex. XX, 8, English : " Remember the Sabbath day 
to keep it holy." Hebrew : I'^j^, (kadd'sho,) to make 
it holy; that is, regard and treat it as holy. The Sab- 
bath was to be made holy by a sacred regard for it, and 
manifested externally and ceremonially by doing no work 
thereon, Thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy 
man-servant,'' etc. Septuagint : "AyLd^-iv auzrj'^, (Jiagiazein 
aiite?i,) to MAKE it HOLY. 

(d) Deut. V, 12, English : " Keep the Sabbath day to 
sanctify it." Observe, the sanctifying of it consists in 
keeping it. The Hebrew and Greek of this are exactly as 
the last under the letter (<?). 

{e) Neh. xiii, 22, English : " Keep the gates, to sanctify 
the Sabbath day." Hebrew : (kaddesh,) to make 

HOLY, etc. Septuagint : 'J^irfCsJv, (hagiazein,) to make holy. 

(/) Jer. xvii, 22, English: "Hallow ye the Sabbath 
day." Hebrew, as in (a). Septuagint : 'Ay.dffarz. 

(g) So verse 27, both in Hebrew and Greek, as in (e). 

(h) So verse 24, both Hebrew and Greek, as in (e). 
(?) And so Gen. ii, 3. 

(f) Lev. XX, 8, English : " I am the Lord which sanc- 
tify you." Hebrew, same as in (b). Septuagint: '0 dyi- 
dZwy, (ho hagiazon,) the one making you holy. 

(k) Lev. xxi, 8, is quoted in (h). 

(?) Joel i, 14, English : " Sanctify ye a fast." He- 
brew: v^^iji, (kadd'shu,) make ye holy a fast. Septua- 



Arq. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



289 



gint : 'Ayidffars, (Jiagiasate,) make ye holy. Here Gesenius 
says the word means, ^^To institute any Jioly tiling, to 
appoint;'^ and Professor Moses Stuart, in his comment- 
ary on Heb. ii, 11, makes quite an able and learned effort 
to show that dytdXto, hagiazo, means to make expiation, in 
which, speaking of the corresponding Hebrew, he says : 
" K'^p, Jciddesh, also means, by a natural association of 
ideas, to expiate, to make atonement for." This learned 
man, no doubt, knew that this Hebrew verb does not pri- 
marihj mean, any where, what he thus says it does, and 
hence he used the adjunct '•''hy a natural association of 
ideas J' ^ 

We have no objection to Mr. Stuart giving the word 
this meaning in some places secondarily, nor to Gesenius 
saying that it means " to appoint, and in another place 
"^0 'prepare, to begin.'^ Such a secondary meaning may 
give the idea of the writer in certain passages ; but such 
an exchange of words for ideas is not the translation of 
the respective passages. To give the idea from a dead 
language and to translate are two things, in our opinion, 
very different. Now, the meanings given by those learned 
men do not affect our present point of consideration ; 
for we are contending for the primary meaning of the 
word, in showing that it means always to make holy. 
And as to our several arguments upon the whole, we are 
perfectly indifferent in how many ways they and others 
may define the term, as long as they do not affect our 
entire work in saying that the word means to cleanse the 
soul morally. We simply wish to show, before undertak- 
ing the twenty-nine passages of the New Testament, al- 
ready mentioned, that a consistent, regular translation of 
the Hebrew verb, and also of its Greek equivalent, may 
be adhered to throughout the entire Scriptures. When 
this preliminary is ended, and Ave enter upon those pas- 
sages, we will then show that the word, in Greek, may 
always be defined as if the Hebrew Lexicon had been 

25 



290 



EEVIEW OF TVESLEYAX PERFECTIOX. [Part II. 



made to define it as found in the XeAv Testament. This 
departure from our regular investigation of Gesenius's proofs 
on the Hebrew word, we hope the reader will pardon, as 
he will better see whj we continue to apply, and show in 
all cases the primary meaning. As to the passage in (Z), 
last quoted from Joel, while we translate bj the primary 
signification, and say, Malce ye holy a fast, it is easy to 
see that this meaning, and that of " to appoint,^' given by 
Gesenius, do not at all conflict : for, in the time of calam- 
ity, it was a custom among the Jews to have a fast, at 
which time they performed certain ceremonies. It was 
on account of God's sore judgments, about to fall on 
them, that Joel cried to them, " Sanctify [or make holy] 
a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all 
the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord 
your God, and cry unto the Lord.'' " On these days," 
says Rev. Richard Watson, " they wore sackcloth next 
the skin, and rent their clothes ; they sprinkled ashes on 
their heads, and neither washed their hands nor anointed 
their heads with oil. The synagogues were filled with 
suppliants, whose prayers were long and mournful, and 
their countenances dejected with all the marks of sorrow 
and repentance."* To call these assemblies they also 
blew a trumpet, as a part of the ceremony. Joel ii, 15. 
Hence, to make lioly a fast means that they shall do just 
what the word says they shall do ; namely, make a fast 
holy by the ceremonies already mentioned, and such like, 
whereby they expressed their reconsecration to God by 
ostensible acts of unfeigned repentance for their wicked- 
ness. Now, since the spirit of the act really means io 
make holy a fast, while the manner, the modus operandi, 
of the act was by calling assemblies, etc., it is easily seen 
that such ceremonial performances were equal to appoint- 
ing a fast, since, in fact, they constituted a part of what 
was called a fast. Therefore, the secondary meaning, to 

Theological Dictionary, Article Fastixg. 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



291 



appoint^ will give the idea as written by Gesenius. As 
Professor Stuart well says, it comes " hy a natural asso- 
ciation of ideas.'^ Hence, with a fair understanding, we 
are justifiable in translating by the primary and regular 
meaning, to make lioly. 

(m) Joel ii, 15 : ^' Blow a trumpet in Zion, sanctify a 
fast, call a solemn assembly." Both the Hebrew and 
Greek are the same in this passage as in (?), and the 
words of the whole passage prove what is said under (I). 

(li) 2 Kings x, 20 : " Proclaim a solemn assembly for 
Baal." Marginal reading : Sanctify!^ Hebrew and 
Greek, same as in (Z). 

io) Our author, under No. 3 of his definition, defines 
the word to consecrate. This is a secondary meaning, 
rather, as explained. He applies it to a priest who was 
made holy by certain ceremonies. He quotes Ex. xxviii, 
41, xxix, 1, and 1 Sam. vii, 1. The Hebrew^ of all these 
may be translated as in the former examples. The propei 
form of the Greek is found in these instances also. 

(p) He speaks of the altar, the temple, and quotes Ex 
xxix, 36 ; Lev. viii, 15 ; Num. vii, 1 ; 1 Kings viii, 64. Thi 
Hebrew, in all these, may be translated by the proper, 
uniform phrase laid down in former examples. In every 
instance the same Greek word is found in the Septu- 
agint. 

(cj) He now speaks of the first-born, and quotes Ex. 
xiii, 2. We may translate the Hebrew as usual. Here 
is found also our Greek verb. The first-born was to be 
made an offering unto God, to the priest; and the parents 
of such were to redeem it, and the money paid went to 
help to support the priests. The parent, in the ceremo- 
nial act of taking it to the temple, as the mother of our 
Lord did, " to present him to the Lord " — Luke ii, 22 — 
MADE the first-born holy. 

(r) Our author further defines " to consecrate or sanctify 
with solemn rites, that is, by lustrations for sacrifice, 1 



292 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Sara, xvi, 5 ; Job i, 5 — troops for battle, Jer. li, 27." 
Here it certainly is just as well to translate, or rather 
define, by to make holy with solemn rites, since it was 
always through the fear, and in honor of the " holy One 
of Israel," that such acts were done. The proper forms 
of dyid^w, hagiazo, are found in these passages, except 
the one in Job. The passage in Jer. li, 27, 28, has the 
word in our version rendered " prepare," which is the sec- 
ondary meaning in these places, since to make troops holy 
for battle, was equal, in idea, to preparing for war. 

(s) He still defines " to consecrate or inaugurate a war, 
battle — that is, with sacred rites, compare Psa. cx, 3 ; 1 
Sam. vii, 9, 10 — as if it should say to prepare, to begin, Joel 
iv, 9 ; Jer. vi, 4." Our version of the Bible has the word 
" prepare " in these places. The Septuagint has followed 
the secondary meaning also. To sanctify or make holy a 
war was, " with sacred rites," to prepare troops for bat- 
tle; hence, the secondary sense is to prepare, in these 
examples. One or two of these passages in Piel we 
have omitted because already, perhaps, too tedious. In 
PuAL he gives consecrated, spoken of priests and sacred 
things, Ezek. xlviii, 11 ; 2 Chron. xxvi, 18; xxxi, 6." The 
first of these reads, "It shall be for the priests that are 
sanctified of the sons of Zadok." Now, since the Pual 
species is the passive of Piel, as grammars and his trans- 
lation above show, and since Piel, as we have found, may 
always be translated to make holy, and since the Septua- 
gint has '(Hc; Ti^LaaiihoLz, the ones having been made holy, 
and this Greek verb being almost every time used in the 
active as the equivalent of the Hebrew, and can have no 
other meaning on the ground of uniformity than that 
above given, why not render the Hebrew in the passive 
of the same meaning also ? The very same form of the 
Greek is used in 2 Chron. xxvi, 18, his second proof. 
His proof, in Isa. xiii, 3, which he defines " my consecrated 
ones, that is, soldiers whom I have consecrated to war" — 



Aeg. xvii.] perfection and sanctification. 



293 



Hebrew, kuddasliay — may, with all propriety, 

be translated the ones made holy hy me. 

There arc several good reasons for this translation. 
(1.) Pu.AX is the passive of Piel,* and Gesenius himself 
defines Piel to make holy. (2.) The same philologist 
says, "It [a personal pronoun] may also be affixed to a 
passive participle, ... in which case it denotes the 
author of the action, (§ 798, 1,) e. g., vJ?n, those slain 
hy him, Isa. xxvii, 7."t Again he says, " When the first 
[of two words in grammatical construction] is a passive 
participle, . . . the second denotes the author of 
the action, e. g., D^ri^x n^-D, a stricken of God, that is, one 
stricken by God. Isa. liii, 4."J The above translation, as 
we have given it, is just a fair application of this rule. (3.) 
The example given by Dr. Nordheimer — Isa. xxvii, 7 — is 
so sanctioned by our authorized version of the Bible : 
'"'Tliem that are slain by hini.^' We have, then, the best of 
authority for our translation to sustain the uniformity of 
the meaning of this word. He defines the Hiph 'iiil, in 
the three subdivisions, as corresponding to those of Piel 
respectively ; and since the same meaning prevails, and 
the same acts every way are to be done, we may omit 
this species, as the former arguments will apply. 

As to the HiTHPA 'hel species, compared with Piel or 
Pi' hel, " the only difference in signification between 
the two is, that in Pi' hel the action is directed with in- 
tensity upon another than the subject, while in Hithpa 
'hel it returns upon the subject himself, e. g., to uncover, 
[Pi' hel,] to uncover one's self,§ [Hithpa 'hel]." Under 
this species there is no passage but what can be trans- 
lated so as to maintain our one uniform meaning. He 
defines it " to sanctfy one's self,'' and quotes Lev. xi, 44, 
for proof. The English says, " Sanctify yourselves." We 
can translate. Ye shall make yourselves holy. Finally, 

*See Dr. Nordheimer's Critical Hebrew Grammar, VoL i, g 146. 
fib. I 856, 2, a. % lb. § 798, 1, a. ^ lb. § 153, 1. 



294 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



he defines, ^'to he celebrated, kept ; ^q. g., a festival. Isa. 
XXX, 29." Jn-ti^ipnn y'73 ufi n:n? Ti?/n; English, "Ye 
shall have a song as in the night when a holy so- 
lemnity is kept." We can just as well maintain uni- 
formity in translating, and say verbally, The song shall 
he to you in the nighty a festival shall be made holy. 
We have noAV passed, with little exception, over all the 
examples given by our author in the Hebrew-English 
Lexicon, which is the work of the best of scholars, and 
approved by all. While we sanction his definitions, and 
those of other learned men, we think that we have suffi- 
ciently shown the word to admit of one uniform signifi- 
cation, which is akin also to that of the other words, holy 
and holiness^ it being their root. This keeps up a uni- 
formity of idea. 

Thus, Avhen a man receives the action of the verb to 
make holy, we then apply an adjective to him to express 
his character, and call him a " holy " man. When we 
speak of his life in respect to his external deportment, 
we then speak of his " holiness^ If we only understood 
the exact meaning of words, there w^ould be, perhaps, 
very little trouble in theological investigation. To study 
the original of the Holy Scriptures is to study theology. 
We now notice, 

ni. The twenty-nine passages already mentioned, where 
dycdXoj, hagiazo, is found, taking them separately, as if the 
word was Hebrew, and calmly searching into each passage, 
so as to arrive, if possible, at the true meaning. While 
we undertake this from a Hebrew stand-point, we call 
attention to the fact that our position is Greek also ; that 
is, the two languages agree on this word, as a very few 
brief remarks will show. (1.) God has revealed his wdll 
to man in Hebrew and in Greek, and it would appear 
strange and foreign from his character, if in the latter he 
would contradict himself in the former. (2.) Dr. Robin- 
son, before giving any particular definition of dycdCiOj 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



295 



hagiazo^ in a general way defines it thus : In N. T. pr. to 
render, ayur^'' which in Enghsh, when expressed in full, is, 
In the Neiv Testament loroperhj to render holy. Rev. 
John Groves also defines, ''To make holy." (3.) Since 
we showed in the last argument, not only by our own views, 
but from an able extract from Dr. Hibbard, that aytoq^ ha- 
gios, every- where means a mere ceremonial and ecclesias- 
tical cleanness, or rather is a qualifier of one, indicating that 
he is in such a condition, it follows, therefore, that Dr. 
Robinson's definition of this verb will fall far short of the 
purpose of those who take it to signify to cleanse the inner 
man ; even granting that by a particular definition under 
the word he afterward seems to favor such persons, this we 
hold can not aff'ect our argument. For, (a) there must be 
an error somewhere if his primary definition is contra- 
dicted by his secondary and particular one, where he quotes 
the passages in proof, (b) Each text must be closely in- 
vestigated; and if our primary definition, apparently con- 
sistent thus far, holds good, it will be equal to demonstra- 
tion that any conflicting definition must be wrong. Such 
a result should give much weight in the scale of reason in 
our favor. Standing then upon a Hebrew and Greek basis, 
precisely identical, we proceed to take in hand the exegesis 
of each passage as we understand it. 

1. Matt, vi, 9, " Hallowed be thy name," ayiaffOrjrw to 
6vo;id <jou. We see no reason why this expression should 
not support the uniform meaning adopted, and fully admit 
of being translated. Let thy name he made holy. Notice, 
1. Do not understand us in this attempt to be finding 
fault with our authorized version of the Scriptures — we 
highly esteem it — nor as dictating that the word ought 
to be translated thus. This we leave with the reader 
to think on as seemeth good to himself in all cases. 
Two points will be aimed at in the examination of all 
these twenty-nine passages : first, to show that without 
any violence to the passages, and in keeping with fair 



296 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOX. [Paet II. 



and honest exegesis, the word mat be thus translated; 
secondly, to show that in xo instance the 'word means to 
cleanse morally, that is, to take away sin from the heart. 
2. Treating the word as if it was Hebrew in this passage, 
our Lord is seen to hare used the Hebrew idiom exactly. 
For, if the reader \\ill turn back to part II of this pres- 
ent argument, and look under Niph'hal, he will find Lev. 
xxii, 32, quoted and explained where it may be rendered, 
I ivill he MADE HOLY among the children of Israel. See 
also other of Gesenius's proof-passages under Niph'hal. 
The Septuagint is very plain on this passage : ayiaadrjffoiiai, 
I ivill he made holy. Our eminent theologian on our text 
says: "There is an evident allusion to Lev. x, 3, 'I will 
be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all 
the people will I be glorified.' This passage — Lev. x, 
3 — is another proof of Gesenius in Niph'hal, which see. 
The spirit of the text, in our Lord's Prayer, is certainly 
the same as that so constantly inculcated among the He- 
brews, that the name of God should be made a Jioly name 
in the earth. Hence the text is in exact accordance with 
the Hebrew idiom, and it does not teach any thing like 
an internal work of grace in the heart. 

2. Luke xi, 2. The Greek is exactly the same in this 
as that in Matthew. 

3. Matt, xxiii, 17: "Or the temple [3 dy.rKco','] that 
maketh holy the gold." Here is a direct reference to 
Jewish customs, as found in the law of Moses. God com- 
manded Moses to MAKE the altar holy. Ex. xxx, 27. 
Then he said, " And the altar of burnt-ofi'ering, with all 
his vessels, and the laver and his foot. And thou shalt 
sanctify them, that they may be most holy : whatsoever 
toucheth them shall be holy." Yerse 29. The words 

shall he holy''' in the original are in Kal species, and 
quoted by Gesenius under No. 2. Now, since it is said 
in Exodus that thinors coming in immediate contact with 

* Mr. Watson's Exposition in loco. 



Aug. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



297 



those holy things about the altar and temple sliall he lioly^ 
it is plain ttiat our Lord used the word in the very same 
Hebrew sense as we have translated it. Any thing that 
touched the sacred temple, or any thing about it that the 
priests had by ceremonial rites made holy, was itself said 
to be made Jioly. It received the ceremonial holiness 
which was attributed to the holy object which it touched. 
A writer on our text says, " Any one will own that that on 
account of zvhich any thing is qualified in a particular way 
must itself he much more qualified in the same way. They 
that swore by the gold of the temple had an eye to it as 
holy ; but what made it holy but the holiness of the 
temple, to the service of which it was appointed?"* We 
see, then, that in this place our word is Hebrew in use 
and in sense. Since it is gold that is made holy, we can 
have no dispute about its application to the heart of man. 

4. Matt, xxiii, 19 : " Or the altar that maketh holy 
\rb dyidO^ou^ the gift." Here is a direct reference to Ex. 
xxix, 37, where it is said of the altar made holy, What- 
soever toucheth the altar shall be holy." i^*^pr, yikdash. 
Gesenius, defining the word in the Hebrew, quotes this 
and Ex. xxx, 29, as proofs of his definition, " To he holy,'' 
and says that it is spoken " of those who are consecrated 
by touching sacred things. Ex. xxix, 37 ; xxx, 29." 
So the word means, here, to make holy hy touching the 
altar, and it is spoken of a gift,'" and not of the human 
soul. Dr. Robinson, in his second division of his defini- 
tion of aycd^o), hagiazo, thus defines, giving these two oc- 
currences of the word in the twenty-third chapter of Mat- 
thew as his proof : "To maJce sacred or holy, to consecrate, 
to set apart from a common to a sacred use ; since in the 
Jewish ritual this was one great object of the purifica- 
tions." Hence, according to the plain references to the 
Hebrew, as made by our Lord himself when he uttered 
these words, and according to Dr. Robinson, the word is 

* Henry's Commentary. 



298 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



used in the passages marked 3 and 4, in the Hebrew sense, 
which is to MAKE HOLY bi/ a ceremonial touch. 

6. John X, 36 : " Whom the Father hath sanctified, 
[fjiaff^, MADE HOLY,] and Sent into the world." Several 
things may serve to show that the word is here used in 
the Hebrew sense, and hence that it is still uniform in 
meaning : (1.) The words of this text are addressed to 
Jews, to Hebrew people. (2.) In the verse before, our 
Lord says to the Jews, " The Scripture can not be 
broken." Both which facts — namely, that he is talking 
to Jeivs and of the Old Testament Scriptures — prove to 
us most conclusively that he used the word in the Hebreio 
sense. (3.) Isaiah had spoken of Christ in these words : 
" The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because he 
hath ANOINTED me to preach good tidings to the meek," 
etc. Our Lord entered the synagogue on the Sabbath 
day, stood up to read, and, no doubt, by an intentional 
act, opened the book finding this very prophecy, applied 
it to himself, and read it — Luke iv, 17 — thereby declar- 
ing that he was the Messiah, to Avhom all the doctors ap- 
phed the words of Isaiah which he had read. By this 
application of the prophecy he also declared that he was 
a priest anointed by the Spirit of the Lord, just the 
same as "the anointing oil was poured" on the head of a 
Jewish high-priest when he was consecrated to or made 
holy to his ofiice. Lev. xxi, 10. As to this high-priest 
it is said. Lev. xxi, 15: "I the Lord do sanctify him." 
Here " sanctify " is in the Piel species, and means to pro- 
nounce holy, or to make holy. 

From these several points of argument we see that 
Christ spoke as a Jew in every sense of the word ; for, 
as a priest thus anointed, made holy for a Divine mission 
and purpose, in the sense of receiving a Divine appoint- 
ment from the Father, he spoke to the Jews when he said 
that the Father had sanctified him and sent him into the 
world. Had he used it in the sense of an internal cleans- 



Aeg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



299 



ing of the soul, two difficulties at once arise: (a) To the 
Jews it would have been a complete shibboleth as to 
comprehending it. (b) So applied to the Savior it would 
impeach his divinity. Hence, our word still keeps its 
Jlebrcw uniformity. 

6. John xvii, 17: "Sanctify them through thy truth: 
thy Word is truth." From several considerations the 
word " sanctify," as here used, must be taken in the He- 
brew sense. (1.) To "sanctify," according to this pas- 
sage, would be cm act of God direct upon his p^opZe, who 
would receive the act. Turn to Lev. xx, 8, and the very 
same doctrine is found, where the Lord says, " Ye shall 
keep my statutes, and do them : I am the Lord which 
sanctify you." Here the sanctifying act from God is 
upon the children of Israel as his OAvn people, his visible 
Church. But the word is here in the Pi' hel species of 
the Hebrew, and means to make holy, to hold sacred, to 
treat as holy, arid to pronounce holy, as well as to sanctify, 
and when the word meant to make holy in one dispensa- 
tion, as an act of God upon his people, the Church, in a 
general way, as opposed to heathens, why should it not 
mean the same thing in another dispensation ? In this 
there is an exact agreement in the use of the Hebrew, so 
that Christ uses it, as the God of the New Testament dis- 
pensation, in the same sense in which he, as the " Angel 
of the Lord" of the old dispensation, used it. (2.) There 
is a perfect analogy in the sense in which the Hebrew is 
employed and its use in our text, as to the fact that in 
both the sense of to make holy consists in keeping them 
from evil, that is, from violating the commandments of 
God, as the fruit and proof of a covenant relation. Im- 
mediately connected with our text, our Lord, as a part 
of the same prayer in which it is contained, says, " I pray 
not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but 
that thou shouldest keep them from the evil." Verse 15. 
Corresponding to this we have, as a part of the same 



300 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part 11. 

verse, in which God is said to sanctify his people, the 
■words, "Ye shall keep my statutes and do tliemy^ and 
adds, " I am the Lord which sanctify you ;" that is, which 
makes, or liolds, or regards you as holt, as a people dedi- 
cated to me by certain forms and doctrines of a pure 
religion, in contradistinction to those heathens not so 
dedicated nor made holt, and that ye may continue to be 
my people, sliall keej:) my statutes, and do them.'' 

(3.) The sanctification of the children of Israel was, there- 
fore, to be through the Word of God as given to them, 
called " statutes," and the prayer of our Savior to the 
Father says, " Sanctify them through thy truth," and adds 
the exegetical clause, Thy Word is truth." As if he 
had said, " Sanctify them through — that is, by the ob- 
servance of — thy Wordy Here observe two things : 
(a) The agreement with Hebrew usage, that sanctification 
is outward obedience to the Word of God, as the fruit of 
saving faith and of covenant relation. (6) That it can 
not be the inward work of the soul, since all the inward 
work of grace the Bible teaches to be by the Holy Spirit ; 
but this work is to be by the "TFbrc?" taken as a rule of 
action, and not as an internal purifier. 

It is marvelous that Dr. Peck quotes our text in proof 
of entire sanctification, in his sense of the phrase, and 
also verse 19, and immediately subjoins : " He doubtless 
speaks here of entire sanctification ; for the disciples had 
certainly already been made the subjects of the first 
beginnfngs of this work. The idea, then, is that Christ 
had sanctified, that is, set apart himself to the media- 
torial work, to the end that his people might be fully 
sanctified through the truth. The object of the Savior's 
mission is then but partiallt accomplished, and God 
but PARTIALLT GLORIFIED in US, SO long as we are sanc- 
tified BUT IN PART."^ 

What a pity that the mind of our learned brother did 

* Perfection; Abridged Ed,, p. 272. 



Arc. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



301 



not fully comprehend his subject ! His view does great 
violence to the passage, and places him on untenable 
ground, as several considerations will show : 

(1.) The disciples were already regenerated. The Doctor 
admits that they had " been made the subjects of the first 
beginnings of" entire sanctification. Therefore, before it 
can be said that they needed any greater work wrought in 
their hearts than this, our former arguments must be met 
and refuted. Their Lord had said to them, chap, xv, 3 : 
^' Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken 
unto you." And that he regarded this cleanness as suffi- 
cient, and He " the Judge of all the earth," is obvious, since 
in the next verse he says, ''Abide in me ;" that is, abide in 
this purity. Abide means to dwell or stay where one is ; 
but if a soul, from the purification of regeneration, must 
go on to what is called entire sanctification, why did he 
not tell them so, instead of telling them to stay in a state 
of grace, where there was only a partial salvation? 

(2.) He has represented them as being " branches," and 
himself as the " vine," Now, all agree that a regenerate 
soul is in the image" of God, w^hich is so clearly stated 
by our standard authors. Here, however, is the same 
thing taught in a metaphor ; for a vine and its branches 
can not be two, but one in nature. So if the doctrine 
of a second work, as such, is necessary, this figure of our 
Lord is only calculated to deceive. 

(3.) The context, as one continued prayer of Christ to 
the Father, beginning with the first verse of the chapter, 
and including it all, in which our Savior most solemnly 
ofi'ers his disciples to God, being about to leave them, is 
not a prayer for a second work of grace to take place in 
their hearts at all, but it is a petition for the preservation 
of their continued state of regeneration, in which they then 
were. " Abide in him." " Holy Father, keep through 
thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that 
they may be one, as we are." 



302 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOJT. [Part II. 



(4.) Dr. Robinson is against those ^'ho hold vrith Dr. 
Peck. Quoting the very passage he says, " Consecrate 
them in or through thy truth; that is, the preaching of thj 
truth." 

(5.) The Doctor's view entirely overlooks the true 8piri. 
of the passage. The sanctification of this seventeenth 
verse copsists in imitating Christ, in the particular of 
Christian unity as one of its most specific features, as 
well as in being kept from evil " in general. Notice, 
{a) Christ speaks of himself under the idea of an exam- 
ple to his disciples, as to how they ought to walk and 
live. Yerse 6, he says, " I have manifested thy name 
unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world." 
He made known the will of the Father in all his acts. 
Verse 8, he says that the disciples " have known surely 
that I came out from thee." The idea of imitation of the 
Great Teacher is largely enjoined all through the New 
Testament; as, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of 
me." Matt, xi, 29. " For I have given you an example, 
that ye should do as I have done unto you." John xiii, 
15. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ 
Jesus." Phil, ii, 5. "Be ye therefore followers [Greek, 
lj.i[j:rjzai^ imitators'] of God as dear children." Eph. v, 1. 
"Be ye kind one toward another, . . . even AS God 
. . . hath forgiven you." Eph. iv, 32. "If ye be 
followers [imitators] of that which is good." 1 Pet. iii, 13. 
" Be ye therefore followers [/j.tfirjrai] of me, even as I also 
am [an imitator] of Christ." 1 Cor' xi, 1. St. Paul was 
an imitator of Christ. So is the Greek verb used from 
which this noun is derived; as, "Follow not [/7.^ [xirmo. 
imitate not] that which is evil, but that which is good." 
3 John, 11. "He that saith he abideth in him, ought 
himself also so to walk, even as he walked." 1 John 
ii, 6. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as [axj-ep^ in the 
same manner as] your Father which is in heaven is 
perfect." Matt, v, 48. These and very many more 



aeo. xvii.j perfection and sanctification. 



803 



passages show us that the Christian's life must be devoted 
to imitating Christ, and the last passage quoted shows that 
this is perfection^ which is identicaV with "entire sanc- 
tification." Christ positively demands of men, in the pres- 
ent dispensation, to imitate him, and to take him as their 
teacher. But this doctrine is nothing new, for all the 
Bible abounds with it. E. g., ''For I am the Lord your 
God; ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, [□nii'^pnn, 
MAKE yourselves holy,] and ye shall be holy, [o'li'ip,] 
for I am holy [tyn)"^]." Lev. xi, 44. Is not this imita- 
tion which God requires of the Jews? Has he not taught 
them that he despises all " abominations," and that which 
is "unclean," and on that account commands them to make 
themselves holy as to all such things, because he is holy ? 
So our Lord prayed to the Father to make them holy in 
this very sense. The whole chapter is to this effect, and 
consists in as plain w^ords as ever Jesus uttered while on 
earth. Hence he used a-yiaXw^ hagiazo, as a Hebrew word^ 
which means about this: Make the7n holy, by keeping 
them daily from the contaminations of this world, even as 
I have kept myself from these contaminations. This brings 
us to consider the word found twice in verse 19, which is 
to some considerable extent explained in this one. 

7 and 8. John xvii, 19 : " For their sakes I sanctify 
myself, that they also might be sanctified through the 
truth." Here our verb is used twice. As to the expres- 
sion, " I SANCTIFY MYSELF," WO find the idiom exactly in 
the Hebrew : " And I will sanctify my great name, 
which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have 
profaned in the midst of them ; and the heathen shall 
know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I 
shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." Ezek. xxxvi, 
23. Here the verb kiddashti, is in the Pi' hel 

species, and it means that God will hold sacred — that he 
ivill regard and treat as holy his OWN name. The rest of 
the verse shows that he does this even by his righteous 



304 



REVIEW OF WESLETAX PEPtFECTIOX. [Part II. 



judgments for their sins, in order to teach them by his 
own example to be holy, that is, a consecrated people, 
apart from the surrounding heathen nations ; for he says, 
tlie lieatlien shall knoiv that I am the Lord. So Christ 
sanctified himself, and spoke of it ^yhen he said, " I have 
glorified thee on the earth ; I have finished the work 
which thou gavest me to do." He lived on earth " holy, 
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." Both in the 
Old and New Testaments God has abundantly taught his 
people to sanctify or make holy his own name in the very 
manner in which he holds that name sacred himself. He 
was Jehovah in the midst of all nations, intending to 
train and fully instruct a peculiar people as his own 
Church, to give them clear revelations of himself, and 
thus he sanctified his name among them, and required 
them to do the same ; for he said, " I will be sanctified 
IN YOU before the heathen." Ezek. xx, 41. Again : 
Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself, and 
I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they 
shall know that I am the Lord." Ezek. xxxviii, 23. 
Here is the very expression, sanctify myself, which occurs 
in John xvii, 19. It is Sykyij^nn, hithJcaddishti, of the 
Hithpa' hel species, and signifies to sajictify one's self, 
or to SHOW one's self holy. It teaches the very same 
doctrine that the text in John does. God has always, 
and to all nations, shown himself to be a holy. Being, as 
opposed to all that he has pronounced unclean and sinful, 
and he has positively commanded men to do the same, 
that is, to imitate ; and so he says, Sanctify your- 
selves, and be ye holy ; for I am the Lord your God." 
Lev. XX, 7. " Ye shall be holy ; for I the Lord your 
God am holy." Lev. xix, 2. The idea is to imitate 
THE PURE AND THE HOLY GoD. As to the word, as used 
the second time in our text, the very nature of the case 
will show that it must be taken in the same sense as the 
first one. The idea of imitating the true God and our 



Arc. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



305 



Lord Jesus Christ must be kept in view as already laid 
down. Hence he desires the disciples to be sanctified 
THROUGH THE TRUTH, and as he sums up the will of God 
in the one word love, in several passages, so now in this 
particular he prays that they may have such Christian 
union as to imitate, in this, the very Godhead. So he 
prays, "Keep through thine own name those w^hom thou 
hast given me, that they may be one, as [xadwc;^ kathos, 
that is, in the sense of like as, to express resemblance in 
action] WE [the Father and the Son] are." Verse 11. 
Observe further, that he prays for his disciples, and for 
those Avho should be his disciples in all ages of the Chris- 
tian Church; and his prayer is for their unity and har- 
mony as Christians to resemble that oneness existing be- 
tween the Father and the Son. ''Neither pray I for 
these [my present disciples] alone, but for them also 
which shall believe on me [in any age] through their 
word; [their preaching] that they all may be one; as 
THOU, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they 
ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US ; that the WORLD [of Gentiles, just 
as it is said in Ezek. xxxviii, 23, as a result of the Lord 
sanctifying himself, ' I will be known in the eyes of many 
nations'] may believe that thou hast sent me." Verses 
20, 21. 

On the phrase / sanctify myself, in our text, we think 
there has been some misinterpretation. Mr. Wesley says, 
"I devote myself, as a victim, to be sacrificed." Dr. 
Adam Clarke says, " I consecrate and devote myself to 
death, that I may thereby purchase eternal salvation for 
them." These both in sense agree, but against their 
view there are some objections : (1.) There is, we think, 
no such use of the verb in the Hebrew as an example, 
when taken in the sense of to devote to death, or to conse- 
crate one^s self to death. This idea is wanting in the Hebrew 
usus loquendi of the word, whereas we have followed the 

HebrcAv sense, in our own view of the passage, and have 

26 



306 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEKFECTION. [Part II. 



quoted two passages in Ezekiel as proof. (2.) There is no 
agreement in the sense of the word where it is first used 
in John xvii, 19, in such a sense, and in the other places in 
the same chapter, if these two other places are used in 
the sense of to cleanse morally. The nature of the whole 
prayer of our Lord requires the word, in all three in- 
stances as used, to be taken in the same sense. The 
parts of a text must agree. (3.) If the word is taken in 
the sense of an atonement, as they seem to say, such an 
atonement must be taken in a general way for all men ; 
but in this prayer Christ confined his petitions to his 
disciples alone." " I pray not for the world, but for 
them which thou hast given me : for they are mine." 
Verse 9. (4.) The context does not tend — taking his 
w^hole prayer as the context — to teach what Christ was 
ahout to do — namely, lay down his life and make an 
atonement, as these commentators seem to understand 
it — but it refers to what our Savior had do7ie — namely, 
that he had kept himself from the corruptions of the 
world, and was wholly consecrated to the will of the 
Father — and he prayed, being now about to leave his dis- 
ciples, that they might imitate himself and the Father as 
to hrotherly unity and love of one another, and be kept 
"from the evil." A consecration to God from all evil, a 
holijiess consisting in hrotherly love and in being heiJt from, 
the evil, is all the sanctification that the passage teaches. 
It is well to observe, finally, as to this passage, that it 
teaches sanctification , a thing that we all agree to in com- 
mon ; but it is the external, and not the internal, and so 
the passage just strengthens our former arguments, and, 
like other instances mentioned, those who make it an 
inward work misapply the facts in the case, just as Dr. 
Peck did his evidences of entire sanctification, which we 
showed to be all evidences of the new birth merely; besides 
many other points already adduced have been shown to be 
misunderstood. Should we grant that our Lord referred 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



307 



to making an atonement, sucli would not necessarily imply 
an internal act by the verb, and so our argument would 
not be affected. Therefore, our exposition being admitted, 
the Hebrew idea and usage are found in the Greek of our 
verb, and it maintains its uniformity. 

9. Acts XX, 32 : " And now, brethren, I commend you 
to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build 
you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them 
which are sanctified," 

Several things serve to show that ''them which are 
sanctified" — roi-r r^yiaaixivoiq — means simply ilio^e wlio are 
standing in good and acceptable covenant relation^ what we 
call true Christians in general, in the sense of Church mem- 
hej'S, as opposed to idolaters and those not fully taught in 
Christian principles, that have not yet become thoroughly 
established in the requirements of Christian organization. 
That this is the meaning we argue from several consider- 
ations, briefly: (1.) In defining our word in this and in 
several other places. Dr. Edward Robinson says that it is 
" said of Christians in general ;" that is, such as are con- 
nected with Christian community. (2.) Since the word is 
in the perfect tense, passive voice, it implies that those 
spoken of, at some previous time, were made holy in the 
Hebrew sense, as in Pi' hel — Lev. xx, 8 — where it is 
said of God's people en masse : " I am the Lord which 
sanctify you ;" that is, which make you holy, in the plain 
sense of making them his people according to ecclesias- 
tical rules, thereby making a distinction between them and 
the heathen nations, whom he did not then sanctify, and 
who were always regarded as the unclean. (3.) The word, 
therefore, in the form here used, has the force of the 
Hebrew adjective, kadhosh, and the Greek aycoq, 

(Jiagios,) holy. It refers to a proper and ecclesiastical 
holiness as becomes the worshipers of the true God — true 
Church members, (a) Dr. Hibbard very properly defines 
this word, as found both in Hebrew and Greek, to qualify 



308 



llEYIEW OF WESLEYAN PEEFECTION. [Part II. 



the true Church of God, in the very sense in which we 
understand it. He says, " Nothing can be more plain, as 
appears from the examples adduced, and from the general 
face of Scripture usage, that o.yiuc^ hagios, and its corre- 
sponding Hebrew, lyip, Jcodesh, and iJ'i^j^, kadosh, when 
used substantively, signify a worshiper of God, a person 
set apart, or devoted to religion.^^ Again he says, " The 
Jews were called the holy, the clean ; and after them the 
Christians were also called the holy, the clean, or the 
saints. The members of the Christian Church were the 
saints; and the saints were the members of the Christian 
Church."* Now, since Dr. Robinson says that the verb 
aycd^oj, hagiazo, means, " in the Neiu Testament, properly 
to render aytov, hagion,'' is it not obvious, since our verb is 
in the passive voice, and also in the past tense, that the 
apostle virtually told them they should be built up and 
receive an inheritance among the Church members, the 
ayunq, en hagiols? This may be further proved. Com- 
pare Eph. i, 18 : " That ye may know what is the hope 
of his calling, and "what the riches of the glory of his in- 
heritance in the saints." roT^ aywiq, among the saints, 
among the holy ones. This passage seems to agree with 
our text exactly. It simply refers to the favor of the 
Gentiles, when brought into Christian Church fellowship. 
So, Col. i, 12 : " Giving thanks unto the Father, which 
hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of 
the saints in light." The most that can well be said 
against this view is, that such may refer to the part of 
the Church who are dead and in hades — in the spirit- 
world — which can not influence the case at all, since there 
is nothing to show that they ever received any greater 
inward work than that of regeneration, and were of, dywc, 
(hoi hagioi,) the holy ones, while living, and are the same 
when dead. God's family are both in heaven and in 
earth. Eph. i, 10. So Dr. Hibbard's argument and Dr. 

Baptism, pp. 136, 137. 



Arg. XVII.l PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



309 



Robinson's definition of necessity combine, witb all the 
force of Hebrew usage, to confirm our views of this pas- 
sage. If they are correct, we think we are ; if we are 
wrong, how can they be right? (b) The manner in which 
St. Peter uses the word " holy " in 1 Pet. 'i, 14, 16, and 
the quotation he makes from Lev. xi, 44, saying, " Be ye 
holy IN ALL MANNER OF CONVERSATION : because it is writ- 
ten, Be ye holy, for I am holy," where the context shows, 
in Leviticus, that the holiness was no iuAvard work, suffi- 
ciently fix the sense of the words, Them that are sanctified^ 
in our text, since we have found the phrase to equal 
hagioi. The holiness respects one's outward manner of 
life. Therefore our word follows Hebrew usage. It is 
uniform. It affords no idea, as yet, of an inward work, 
but merely that of having been made holy^ so far as the 
word in itself is concerned; that is, it expresses Church 
membership. 

10. Acts xxvi, 18: Paul is sent to the Gentiles, "to 
open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and 
from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive 
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are 
sanctified \_h roiq rjYia<Tixhoiq\ by faith that is in me." 

We prefer Mr. Wesley's translation of this passage, as 
it is, perhaps, more agreeable with the Greek punctua- 
tion. " That they may receive through faith which is in 
me, forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them 
that are sanctified." This inheritance seems to be the 
blessings and privileges of the Christian Church on 
earth. We give our reasons for this opinion, (a) Green- 
field defines yJrjpoy^ kleron, here translated ''inheritance," 
" a j^art, portion, shareJ' In Acts viii, 21, it is trans- 
lated "lot." "Thou hast neither part nor LOT in this 
matter;" where it evidently means the "lot" or "part" 
of a Church member. Dr. Robinson defines it " a portion, 
possession, heritage.'^ It corresponds to the Hebrew byi, 
goral, where Gesenius says, "Xo^, portion, destiny, as 



310 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOjST. [Part II. 



assigned to men from God. Psa. xvi, 5;" where David 
seems to be speaking of what he has, and not of what he 
will have hereafter. " The lines are fallen unto me in 
pleasant places ; yea, I have a goodly JieritageJ^ (h) The 
nature of the passage implies that the reference was to 
the earthly inheritance ; for the apostle is sent to " Gen- 
tiles " — heathens who need to have the eyes of their un- 
derstanding opened — to be turned from the power of Sa- 
tan, which was heathenism in this instance. All this he 
is to do, that these Gentiles may have their lot or portion 
with the converted, with the Church, with the saints — that 
is, with the ones made holy in the Hebrew sense. Or if 
it means the heavenly inheritance, our argument, in every 
way, stands the same; and so is really argued in the last 
passage marked (9). In either sense it follows the He- 
brew signification, and simply means Church members or 
Christians. This is also one of Dr. Robinson's proof- 
passages, where he says it is " said of Christians in gen- 
eral." And how, in the nature of the case, can it mean 
such as have received the second blessing called entire 
sanctification, when all that the text teaches as being 
necessary to obtain this inheritance, so far as it respects 
a work having reference to the soul, is merely "forgive- 
ness of sins," since Rev. Richard Watson says, "The 
justification of the ungodly, the counting or imputation 
of righteousness, the FORaiVENESS of iniquity, and the 
covering and non-imputation of sin, are phrases which have 
all, perhaps, their various shades of meaning, but which 
express the very same blessing under different views 
Now, the ^'forgiveness of iniquity,^' here used by Mr. 
Watson, and the forgiveness of sins,'' found in our text, 
are the same in the original. 

But the doctrine is, according to Mr. Watson and our 
Church generally, that when one is pardoned or has his 
sins forgiven, it is an act done for him called justifica- 

* Theological Dictionary, Article Justification. 



Aro. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



311 



tion; that simultaneously there is an internal regenera- 
tion; that this is invariably a "concomitant" of justifica- 
tion, and that it is rarely expected, though believed to be 
possible, that entire sanctification should be a concomitant 
also. But on our impending text, both Dr. Adam Clarke 
and Mr. Benson hold that the phrase " them that are 
sanctified " means and includes " entire sanctification." 
Now, granting this to be so, their own comments must 
destroy their own doctrine, as a distinct work; for Mr. 
Benson says " that they may be sanctified as well as just- 
ified." Dr. Clarke says " that all their sins may be par- 
doned, and their souls sanctified; for nothing less is 
implied in the phrase a<fefnq d/j.apzcoj'^, which signifies the 
talcing away or removal of sins. . . . And as the 
inheritance is among them that are sanctified, this is a 
farther proof that a(pt<nq dimpriiov signifies not only the 
forgiveness of sins, but also the purification of the heart.^' 
By these words, we think any one Avould understand these 
commentators to mean entire sanctification as they under- 
stood it. And if so, they beg the whole question neces- 
sary to make a case, and thereby virtually renounce their 
second work, making what is called the " concomitant " of 
mere pardon identical with their complete sanctity. This 
signal dilemma I have found and shown in Mr. Watson's 
definition of regeneration, and that of sanctification as 
found in his Theological Dictionary, wherein it is obvious 
that he has failed to show any difi"erence in these two doc- 
trines ; and in Dr. Peck we have shown almost a score of 
similar difiiculties. We conclude on our phrase in this 
text, upon the whole, (1.) That it follows the Hebrew use 
of the verb. (2.) That if it means an inward work, as 
held by our commentators, we thereby completely destroy 
the doctrine which, as a Church, we have tried to defend 
and teach ! 

11. 1 Cor. i, 2 : " Unto the Church of God which is at 
Corinth, to them that are sanctified \fjyLrx<Tij.i'^oLz'\ in Christ 



312 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEEFECTION. [Part II. 



Jesus, called to be saints, "with all that in every place call 
upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." 

(1.) It has been shown, in our exposition of a former 
text, that rjiaaixivoiq, the perfect passive participle, here 
rendered " them that are sanctified," means, according to 
Dr. Robinson, to render ayiov^ holy, and that it means those 
who have been made holy. This is in perfect analogy 
with the perfect passive participle and the kindred adjec- 
tive of any verb in our own language. Thus, in speaking 
of a man having been freed or made free, we call him a 
free man ; of a man having been justified or made just, a 
just man ; of one having been purified or made pure, a 
pure man. Hundreds of instances of this kind of usage, 
of the perfect participle as an adjective, are found in the 
Latin. E. g., we open our Lexicon at random, and find 
"IMPEDITUS," obstructed, from impedio, to obstruct, where 
Leverett gives it, apparently as constantly used, as an 
adjective, although verbally it would be translated as a 
participle, having been obstructed. It is, therefore, proper, 
according to the general usage of language, to make this 
participle equal to aytoc, (hagios,) holy, 

(2.) This is its mea^ning all through the Old Testament 
and also the New, as we have seen. Ex. xix, 6: "Ye 
shall be unto me ... an holy nation." Hebrew, 
tynj^; Septuagint, a/cov. This was the word of the Lord 
to the whole body of the children of Israel as his Church. 
So, also, Ex. xxii, 31, "Ye shall be holy men unto me;" 
and Lev. xi, 44, 45, with many other passages. These 
prove that the ones having been made holy, the rulq r^yma- 
iihoiz^ or their equivalent, mean God's visible Church on 
earth, whether in the old or new dispensation. The Chris- 
tian Church is actually commanded to be, as a people, the 
aywL^ hagioi, of the Lord in the same sense in which the 
Church of the Jewish age was. 1 Pet. i, 14-16 : " As 
obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to 
the former lusts in your ignorance; but as he which hath 



Aug. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



313 



called you is holy, [aV^ovJ so be ye holy [ayio:'] in all 
manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye 
holy, [ay£0£,] for I am holy [aVio?]." Observe, (a) This 
holiness is to consist in outward conformity to Christian- 
ity, as opposed to fashioning " themselves "according 
to the former lusts in ignorance." They had been hea- 
thens before their conversion, "scattered throughout Pon- 
tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia;" though 
not exclusively so by any means, for some were converted 
Jews, (b) Their holiness is specified to be in "all man- 
ner OP CONVERSATION." That is, SO as not to break the 
moral law, nor ecclesiastical ordinances, (c) He com- 
mands them to be holj/, not only according to the direc- 
tions in (a) and (b), but his quoting the Old Testament 
gives full proof that he designs to be understood as teach- 
ing the very same holiness which was practiced among 
the Jews, and inculcated in the quotation which he makes 
either from Lev. xi, 44, or xix, 2, where the whole chap- 
ter and context, of both these passages respectively, for- 
bid idolatiy, especially ; and so just corresponds to his 
forbidding the Christian Church ^'fashioning themselves 
according to the former lusts.^' In the old dispensation, 
God, as shown on almost every page of the Bible, forbade 
idolatry, and his people from mingling with the idolatrous 
nations, because he had made them holy by such Divine 
prohibitions ; and the very same thing is perpetually taught 
in the Christian dispensation. This is holiness; this is 
sanctification. 

(3.) The grammatical apposition in our text is proof that 
the aywi^ holy — translated " saints " — constitute the Church 
in both dispensations. Our text says that the Epistle to 
the Corinthians was written "unto the Cjiurch of God," 
located " at Corinth." It really has name and locality. 
But in apposition with this Church the Epistle is ad- 
dressed " to them that are sanctified, or made holy " — 

by ecclesiastical distinctions to distinguish them from 

27 



314 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



heatliens — and still another clause in apposition is added, 
for lie writes to them ^^-hich are " called to be saints," 
a^rojc; and still another, which in sense is in apposition, 
" With all that m every place call upon the name of Jesus 
Christ our Lord." Here it is equal to demonstration 
that the Church, the sanctified, the saints, and every on.e 
else who calls on the name of the Lord, are one and the 
same; just as we proved in Iso. 2, above. 

(4.) Our word, then, keeps its uniformity of meaning, 
being precisely Hebrew in sense. This is another of the 
proof-passages of Dr. Robinson, where he says, very cor- 
rectly, that it is " said of Christians in general." Dr. 
Adam Clarke appreciated the sense of the word here ex- 
actly. He says, ''"Hyiaffiii'^oiq, separated from the corrup- 
tions of their place and age." It is strange that his 
comment, on the last passage considered, is so different 
from what he here says, when the passages are similar, 
and so considered by Dr. Robinson. They were made 
holy in obeying the moral law, and the ceremonial part 
of the Christian religion, such as baptism, the sign of the 
Church relation, and the partaking of the sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper, and thus they were separated, as Dr. 
Clarke says, from the unholy or unclean heathen, not 
so separated. If we say that the word here means an 
inward work, we do great violence to the sense of our 
text. 

12. Jude 1 : " Jude ... to them that are sancti- 
fied [zinq rj'.afffiivoiq] by God the Father, and preserved 
in Jesus Christ, and called." Here our word means 
MADE HOLY by Church rites and ordinances as in the last 
text. They being alike, we need not examine this fur- 
ther; but simply observe that our view here agrees with 
the opinion of others. This text also comes under Dr. 
Robinson's remark, ^vhere he says that it is " said of 
Christians in general." Here Dr. Clarke says : " Sancti- 
fied signifies here consecrated to God through faith in 



arg. xvit.] perfection and sanctification. 315 



Christ.'' Mr. Benson says, "Devoted to his service, set 
apart for him and made holy, through the influence of his 
grace." Our term still works from a Hebrew stand- 
point. 

13. 1 Cor. vi, 9-11 : " The unrighteous shall not inherit 
the kingdom of God, . . . neither fornicators, nor 
idolaters, etc. . . . And such were some of you : but 
ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified 
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our 
God." 

We notice, (1.) The contrast in this passage ; their 
sanctification is of an external character, because opposed 
to such things as fornication, idolatry, and covetousness — • 
the infernal triumvirate of our OAvn age. In this respect 
it just corresponds with the sanctification taught in the 
old dispensation, where the Hebrew verb is used, as in 
Lev. xi, 43, 44, where God forbids defilement with "any 
creeping thing," and positively enjoins, as opposed to 
this, saying, " Sanctify yourselves ;" that is, make your- 
selves HOLY, after which it could be said of them in terms 
of commendation, in the words of our text, rjycdffOrj-s^ heg- 
iasthete, ye are sanctified ; verbally, ye were made holy. 
(2.) The order of this text is to be observed. It is first 
said of them, "Ye are washed." No doubt baptism by 
water is here meant. Then it says, " Ye are sanctified ;" 
then, " Ye are justified." Dr. Adam Clarke's comment 
on the passage is, perhaps, as good and as sensible as a 
mortal can possibly write or conceive of, and deserves to 
be quoted here, although his etymology of the verb, ex- 
cellent in meaning, seems mysterious and without author- 
ity from any source within our knowledge, and wanting, 
perhaps, in analogy. We do not say that he is incorrect. 
He says, ''But ye are tvashed.^ Several suppose that 
the 07^der in which the operations of the grace of God 
take place in the soul, is here inverted; but I am of 
a very different mind. Every thing will appear here 



316 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 

in its order, when we understand the terms used bj the 
apostle. Ye are tvashed, dTtsXouffaffds, ye have been bap- 
tized into the Christian faith ; and ye have promised in 
this baptism to put off all filthiness of the flesh and spirit ; 
and the washing of your bodies is emblematical of the 
purification of your souls. Ye are sanctified, 'Hyidadrire, 
from a, privative, and yrj, the earth; ye are separated from 
earthly things, to be connected with spiritual. Ye are 
separated from time, to be connected with eternity/. Ye 
are separated from idols, to be joiiied to the living GoD. 
Separation from common earthly, or sinful uses, to be 
wholly employed in the service of the true God, is the 
ideal meaning of this word, both in the Old and New 
Testaments. It was in consequence of their being sep- 
arated from the world that they became a Church of God. 
Ye were formerly workers of iniquity, and associated with 
workers of iniquity ; but noAV ye are separated from 
them, and united together to work out your salvation with 
fear and trembling before God. Ye are justified, 'Edcxac- 
6drjT£, Ye have been brought into a state of favor with 
God, your sins have been blotted out through Christ 
Jesus; the Spirit of God witnessing the same to your 
conscience, and carrying on, by his energy, the great 
w^ork of regeneration in your hearts. The process here 
is plain and simple: 1. Paul and his brother apostles 
preached the Gospel at Corinth, and besought the people 
to turn from darkness to light; from idol vanities to the 
living God, and to believe in the Lord Jesus for the re- 
mission of sins. 2. The people who heard were con- 
vinced of the Divine truths delivered by the apostle, and 
flocked to baptism. 3. They were baptized in the name 
of the Lord Jesus, and thus took upon them the public 
profession of the Gospel. 4. Being now baptized into 
the Christian faith, they were separated from idols and 
idolaters, and became incorporated with the Church of 
God. 5. As penitents, they were led to the Lord Jesus, 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



317 



for justification^ which they received through faith in his 
blood. 6. Being justified freely, having their sins forgiven 
-through the redemption that is in Jesus; they received 
the Spirit of God, to attest this glorious work of grace 
to their consciences; and thus became possessed of that 
principle of righteousness, that true leaven which was 
to leaven the whole lump, producing that universal 
holiness without which no man can see the Lord." 
Such is the opinion of our author as to the order of 
things with the Corinthians. Any one can see that if this 
order is correct, if the term in question means to remove 
sin from the heart, as additional to regeneration, then, 
verily, they would have been "wholly sanctified" before 
justification. (3.) We therefore conclude that our verb 
here signifies to make holy by the process of setting 
themselves apart in Christian organization in contradis- 
tinction to the unbaptized and the non-communicants, 
agreeing in meaning with Dr. Clarke. Now, keeping in 
mind Dr. Clarke's clear comment on this text, observe 
that the verb rjidaOiqrt is in the aorist tense, and indicates 
that, at a time previous to the apostle's writing to them, 
they were made holy by their mere Church relation ; that 
is, Ye ivere made aywi, hagioi. On this account, in chap, 
i, 2, he addresses them as saints, using the term dyto'ic;, 
hagiois. Is not this natural ? Sensible ? According to 
the tense of the verb? According to Dr. Clarke's com- 
ment? In keeping with the point contended for, that 
dytoq, hagios, is a term to indicate Church or covenant 
relation? Demonstrating the fact, before written, that 
dytd^o), hagiazOy both etymologically and practically, means 
to make one aytov, liagion 2 Hence, our word is Hebrew 
still — it is uniform in sense. 

14. 1 Tim. iv, 5 : " For it is sanctified \_Ayid%tTar\ by 
the Word of God and prayer." The thing here sanctified 
is the " creature''^ of God, mentioned in verse 4 — -av -Axiaixa 
Oeoo xaXbv, every created thing of God is usef ul. It refers 



318 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



to meats which some apostates from the faith should for- 
bid to be eaten, and, of course, it means our food in gen- 
eral. There are no distinctions of meats in the Christian 
dispensation, as there were in the old Levitical. The 
voice which spoke to Peter said, "What God hath 
cleansed, that call not thou common" — Acts x, 15 — that 
is, unclean. Hence, all our food has been sanctified by 
the Word of God ; that is, pronounced or made holy by 
the repeal of the arbitrary law of the Divine Lawgiver. 
He also says it is sanctified "by prayer." We are to 
MAKE our food HOLY by asking the blessing of our boun- 
tiful Benefactor upon it, which is done " by prayer," and 
so this constitutes, in these two particulars, the sanctifi- 
cation in this passage. The word, then, is Hebrew in use. 
It has no reference, either, to the purity of the human 
heart. 

15. 2 Tim. ii, 21 : "If a man therefore purge himself 
from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, 
\fjYia(j!j.i'^o'^^ and meet for the Master's use, and prepared 
unto every good work." We notice : (1.) Here is the 
perfect participle again, which we have found to be equal 
in meaning to aytoq, (hagios,) holy, as applied to a Church 
member. (2.) For " a man,'' in our text, we have " a 
vessel," which shows that, even in this, the passage has a 
strong Hebrew coloring. Thus, in Isa. xiii, 3, those whom 
God musters, as soldiers to execute his wrath, he calls 
"my sanctified ones." In verse 5 he calls them 'hj 
nVi, (kle zamo,) the vessels of my wrath. (3.) In this 
text a man is said to purge himself," and, as a result 
of this, he is to be as a vessel — r^yiaaiii'^o'^ — which is 
equal to ay.o^A, which is the same as J^np, all meaning 
holy. Now, compare this with Lev. xi, 44, where the 
Hebrew verb is in the Hithpa' hel species, and where 
the adjective stands after it, to show what condition they 
will be in after the reflexive act of the verb has passed 
upon them, and we have an exact analogy. The clause 



arg. xyii.] perfection and sanctificatiox. 



319 



is, Sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy ;" that is, 
MAKE yourselves holy by not touching any " creeping 
thing," as the same verse says. This corresponds with 
Avhat stands as the context to our text, where Paul, in 
verse 16, tells Timothy to " shun profane and vain bab- 
blings," and such like things, from which he who is made 
holy, or sanctified, is to be separated. Both in the Old 
and New Testaments the sanctification is external in 
EVERY instance. The analogy in these two passages 
seems very close. Dr. Clark-e is again to the point in 
settling the meaning of our word, let his opinions else- 
where be as they may. He says, " He that takes heed 
to his ways and to his doctrines, and walks with God, 
will separate himself, not only from all false doctrines, but 
from all wicJced men, and thus be sanctified and proper to 
be employed by the Master in every good word and 
w^ork." 0, that the Church as a body, individually, would 
sanctify itself according to this wholesome remark ! So 
neither is there an inward work taught in this passage ! 

16. 1 Peter iii, 15 : " But sanctify [ayiaffa-s] the Lord 
God in your hearts." We have instances of ,^ this kind of 
language in the Hebrew Scriptures, where man, the sin- 
ful, is commanded to sanctify Him whose very nature is 
infinite purity, and, of course, it can not mean entire 
sanctification, as men hold that phrase. The Lord said 
to Moses, Deut. xxxii, 51: "Ye sanctified me not in the 
midst of the children of Israel." Here the Hebrew 
DjT^^P^ kiddashtem, is found in the Pi' hel species, and 
is defined in Robinson's Gesenius's Lexicon, quoting the 
very passage, " To hold sacred, to regard and treat as 
holy, as God. Deut. xxxii, 51." That is, make God a 
HOLY Being in all your thoughts, in the sense of regard- 
ing and treating him as such, a reverential, spiritual emo- 
tion of the heart constantly. Mr. Wesley says, ^' Have a 
holy fear and a full trust in his wise providence." Dr. 
Clarke holds the same views, and is quite lengthy and 



320 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



plain on this text. One period may suffice: "Entertain 
just notions of God, of his nature, power, will, justice, 
goodness, and truth. Do not conceive of him as being 
actuated by such passions as men. Separate him in your 
hearts from every thing earthly, human, fickle, rigidly se- 
vere, or capriciously merciful.''' So the regularity of 
meaning in our word is still seen, and its sense to cleanse 
the soul morally is wanting. 

17. Eph. V, 25, 26 : " Husbands, love your wives, even 
as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it, 
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing 
of "water by the Word." This passage, according to our 
received translation of the Scriptures, seems dark and un- 
satisfactory. That Christ should sanctify his Church, in 
the sense of cleansing it in any way — for in this sense one 
is apt to conceive of it, because "sanctify" is connected 
with "cleanse" by "and" — and that he should cleanse it 
" with the washing of water," seem to us incredible. Xo 
man, in a moral respect, has ever been cleansed by the 
washing of water, whether that be baptism or not. The 
comments, also, that we have had access to leave the sub- 
ject as dark, as to the possibility of cleansing the Church 
"with the washing of water," as if such writings had 
never existed. They speak of baptism being " accompa- 
nied by the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit," and 
such like expressions, all vhich seem to im'ply that "the 
purifying influences" necessarily attend baptism, which is 
not the case; for if they did, then baptism by water 
would be the very means by which we receive pardon and 
adoption. Our convictions are that the Holy Scriptures, 
properly interpreted, can not conflict. There can be no 
discord in the works of God. Neither can there be in 
his Word. " The law of the Lord is perfect." From 
what seems to us to be a misunderstanding of this text, 
some have taken it as a proof for the remission of sins by 
water baptism. Since the passage has appeared dark to 



Amj. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 321 



many, even to those who believe that there is no moral 
purity for the soul, except through the direct operation 
of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, and since others have 
made it the proof of a masked infidelity and pseudo-Ghris- 
tianity, we trust the most fastidious Avill pardon us for 
offering our own exposition. The final object that we 
have in view, in this exegesis, is to arrive at the true 
sense of the word " sanctify," as used in this text. In 
order to this we must interpret the passage in its several 
phrases correctly. 

(1.) The meaning of the word dytd<rrj, hagiase, "might 
sanctify," we assume to be might regard and treat as holy. 
This is the very signification given by Gesenius, in the 
Pi' HEL of the Hebrew verb, (a) This is like the He- 
brew use of the word in the fact that it is an act of God 
direct on his people as a Church, the same as the term is 
employed in the Old Testament. (6) We have many 
examples. Take Lev. xx, 8, " I am the Lord which 
SANCTIFY you." Here is the Pi' hel participle DDi:>"ipD, 
(m^ kaddishkem,) the one regarding and treating you as 
HOLY, as opposed to those not in a covenant relation, 
those not of the true Church of God. This we hold to 
be the sense of the word, as further expositions may help 
to sustain us. 

(2.) The word "cleanse," in the original, is y.aOapiffaq^ 
katharisas — the first aorist participle of xaOapi^w, kath- 
arizo. We choose to use it here in the Levitical or cer- 
emonial sense of, to cleanse^ to make lawful, to declare 
clean. These are the meanings given by Dr. Robinson, 
but he quotes our text under his second division, where 
he holds it "in a moral sense." Our sense of it is the 
same as its use in Acts x, 15, " What God hath 
CLEANSED \k/.addpiae\ that call not thou common," that is, 
unclean. The very same is in chapter xi, 9. Now, the 
tenth and part of the eleventh chapter of Acts give the 
account of Peter's vision, by which it was made known 



322 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



to him that ceremonial distinctions were destroyed. When 
he understood the true nature and import of his vision, 
he preached the Gospel with great power to the Gentiles. 
A number of them were converted on the occasion. The 
Jews, beholding the -fact, were astonished," "because 
that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the 
Holy Ghost." Peter said, " Can any man forbid water, 
that these should not be baptized, which have received the 
Holy Ghost as well as we ?" The secret of the matter 
was, God had declared them dean; he had thrown off the 
ceremonial prohibition which had rendered the Gentile 
world unclean^ which had excluded them from grace, and 
now placed them on equal chances for salvation with the 
Jew. He now considered them fit subjects for Christian 
baptism, as all Gentiles are, so far as the general provi- 
sions of grace are concerned ; that is, all have access to 
the Church of God; and those who deny this rite of 
baptism to infants ought to be consistent, and deny to 
them the benefit of the atonement also, which will be no 
trouble for them at all, since the rite of baptism is a result 
procured for us through the atonement. When Peter re- 
turned to Jerusalem the Jews accused him for holding fel- 
lowship with the uncircumcised. He explains to them his 
vision, giving the interpretation thereof in full, how a 
" voice " had told him not to call that unclean which God 
had cleansed. When the Jews heard this, they were sat- 
isfied with his explanation, and said, " Then hath God 
also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." The 
word, then, means, as proved by these two places in the 
Acts, to declare ceremonially clean, or we may so slightly 
modify it as to suit this passage, and say, to declai^e cere- 
monially fit. 

(3.) The phrase, washing of water," means haptism. 
The term XsTpw, loutro, Dr. Robinson defines, " a washing, 
ablution, that is, the act, spoken of baptism. Eph. v, 
26." Dr. Clarke says, " Baptism, accompanied by the 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



323 



purifying influences of the Holy Spirit." Mr. Wesley 
says, '''Having cleansed it from the guilt and power of 
sin, hy the washing of water. In baptism, if with the 
' outward and visible sign,' we receive the inward and 
spiritual grace." Mr. Benson is to the same effect. 

(4.) Our authorized version renders the word rw Inzpuj^ 
" WITH ^/i? ivashing,'' thereby making it the Dative instru- 
mental. We would not so render it. Our views of the- 
ology forbid us. We would make it the Dative of the 
iyidirect object of -AaOapiaa-. Compare Tit. ii, 14, "va . . . 
7.aOapL(j-Q tau-(x) Xao'^^ that he might cleanse foe, himself a 
people." Here the same verb, exactly, takes a direct and 
indirect object. 

(5.) The particle iv, en, in our text, in our authorized 
version translated " by," and by Mr. Wesley " through," 
we take to have the force of according to. In proof of 
this, (a) Dr. Eobinson so gives it where it is used, "of a 
rule, law, standard." Greenfield and Groves give it this 
same meaning in some instances. Dr. Winer likewise 
where he says it is used "of the rule, the measure to 
lohich something is referred, according to which it is 
judged. Compare the Hebrew D, 5e."* Bretshneider 
and Wahl so define it in Eph. iv, 16 ; Rom. i, 24 ; Phil, 
ii, 7. (b) Several examples can be given, besides those 
just mentioned, as Matt, vii, 2, 'Ev S yap xpiixan xpivsrs^ 
xpiOrjffsffOs, For ACCORDING TO what judgment ye judge, ye 
shall he judged. 1 Thess. iv, 15, For this we say to you, 
h Xoyu) Kupiou, ACCORDING TO the ivord of the Lord. 

(6.) The term prjiiavt, rhemati, in our version rendered 
" word," since it comes from the verb pioj, (rheo,) to speak, 
properly signifies that which is spoken, or a word, as 
spoken, and so, perhaps, very nearly, if not exactly, cor- 
responds to our word speech, Avhen we say that some one 
makes a speech, and was most likely used in our text in 
reference to the speech or commands of our Lord during 

* Idioms of the Language of the New Testament, § 52, 2, b. 



324 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEEFECTION. [P^rt 11. 



his public ministry, since it is sometimes written in full, 
as in Rom. x, 17, ^ ds dxoi] did pyjtxaroq 0£uu, hearing is 
through the Word of God. So Dr. Robinson defines it 
where he gives our text in proof, "The doctrines and 
promises revealed and taught from God, the Gospel as 

PREACHED." 

(7.) The parts of the text being now defined, and good 
authority adduced for the sense that we affix to every 
term, bearing in mind, also, that the apostle is writing to 
a Church who had been heathens and not Jews, we will 
give our translation of the passage, xadcbq xai 6 XpKjroq 

rjyd-r^ffs. ttiV exxlr^ffioy xdi iauTO> -apibiDv.vj UTzep ab-rjq"ha ahzr^v 
a^yidarj^ xadapiaa-z rw Isrpa) rou odazoq iv prjpart; As also Christ 

loved the Church and gave himself for it; that he might 

REGARD AND TREAT IT AS HOLY, HAVINa DECLARED [it] 

CEREMONIALLY CLEAN or FIT FOR the Washing of tuater, 

[BxiPTISM,] ACCORDING TO THE GoSPEL. 

(8.) Such a command had been given in the ministry 
of our Lord respecting baptism, when he commanded the 
disciples to go into all nations and baptize them. Matt, 
xxviii, 19. 

(9.) When the apostle said Christ gave himself that he 
might treat the Church as holy^ how reasonable it is that 
he should throw in the participial clause — •/.aOapiaa'z ■/.. r. 
L — in order to guard the conditionality of the Christian 
religion ! otherwise his statement would teach Universalism. 
But the adjunct implies an antepedent act to that of be- 
ing regarded holy, which is baptism — the sign that sup- 
poses personal faith in Christ. Hence Dr. Winer says, 
" In Eph. V, 26, i> prjfiaTt does not belong to rw ?.ouTp<p rod 

udaroq, but it is divided thus : ha auzrjv, ayidff-q^ xaOapiaa^ rw 

X. T. vd. h pfj/iart, the y.aOapiXeiv precedes a/faC.j and is neg- 
ative as the latter somewhat positive."^ 

(10.) While these several points contribute to make the 
Hebrew usus loquendi of dyidXw^ hagiazo, appear, as well 

* Idioms, I 19, 2. 



Aeg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



325 



as to show a plain, consistent, and proper order of theo- 
logical items, the force of the apostle's exhortation must 
also be brought to bear on the meaning of liagiazo. The 
twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth verses, on which we offer 
these remarks, are but the illustrations by which the apos- 
tle enforces his exhortation. He had just commanded 
husbands to love their wives as Christ did the Church in 
dying for it. And the final end of this atonement, as 
stated in our text, is, that he might regard the members 
of his Church as holy, which holiness was, so far as it 
relates to this passage, in part at least, to consist in hus- 
bands loving their wives ; otherwise the exhortation and the 
illustration by which it is enforced, have no connection or 
bearing whatever. But verse 27 continues the same doc- 
trine in substance, as the final end for which Christ gave 
himself : " That he might present it to himself a glorious 
Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; 
but that it should be [o-yCa^ hagiaj holy and without 
blemish." Now, every one can see that Jiagiazo, in verse 
26, is intended to be taken in the radical and Hebrew 
sense of making the Church hagia, as found in verse 27. 
Therefore, our word is Hebrew in use as applied diredlg 
to indicate the act of God upon his entire people, just as 
in the old ceremonial dispensation. And the sanctifica- 
tion taught in it consists in the parties in the marriage 
relation loving one another. See the rest of the chapter. 
And the next chapter goes on with the same subject, re- 
quiring children to be obedient to parents, and parents 
properly to train their children, as duties in the Church 
relation. Such external duties constitute all the sanctifi- 
cation that our text requires. Since these arguments are 
designed to teach the Christian religion in that manner 
in which we think men ought to practice it, a further re- 
mark may be admissible. In the first verse of the next 
chapter, the sanctification, being outward obedience en- 
joined upon all, is extended even to children; for it is 



326 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



said, " Children [r^zva] obey your parents in the Lord." 
In No. 2 of our remarks on this text, we observed that 
children had a right to the Church relation, because God 
had made a general provision for the children of Gentiles 
as well as for those of Jews. Now, the apostle com- 
mands them to obey their parents IN the Lord. This is 
not only sanctification, in the sense of a covenant relation 
as opposed to what is called "entire sanctification" as an 
inward work ; but it also shows that children of Christian 
parents are regarded as in the covenant, and must keep 
its requirements, namely, the moral law, to which the 
apostle refers when he speaks of " the first commandment 
with promise." Now, if the moral law has any claim on 
children of Christian parents, we suggest that they be 
baptized, or else that the parents themselves repudiate 
baptism altogether, on the very same ground that they 
withhold it from the child. These remarks are not at all 
foreign from our subject in general. We are writing on 
practical Christian perfection and sanctification. The fact 
can not be denied that the worst communities in our land, 
the most given to Sabbath-breaking and profanity, infi- 
delity, hardness of heart, and disrespect for the house of 
God, are composed of the children of those parents op- 
posed to infant baptism, or who have neglected the ordi- 
nance, and have failed to train their children according to 
the requirements of the covenant relation. 

18 and 19. 1 Cor. vii, 14: "For the unbelieving hus- 
band is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
sanctified by the husband ; else were your children un- 
clean ; but now are they holy." Our verb riyiaaxdi^ (Jiegi- 
astai,) is sanctified," occurs twice in this text. It is used 
in the same sense in each clause. The word has been so 
clearly defined by our commentators, and those, too, who 
admire entire sanctification, as some hold it, to suit our 
argument both as to this passage and as to the subject in 
general, that we think we can not do better, in giving our 



Arc. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



327 



views of its use, as here found twice and in general to 
favor our argument, than to quote those commentators. 
We hope that the fact of a majority of our readers being 
supposed to be without those commentaries, or perhaps 
any others of a similar kind, who may be desirous to 
know the opinion of learned men on this word, especially 
on first sight of our exegesis, may justify us for quoting 
them as much as we do. We will now quote Mr. Benson, 
and in so doing the reader will please to observe, that he 
includes in his own exposition the opinion of Drs. Dod- 
dridge and Whitby, besides merely naming Clemens Alex- 
andrinus and Tertullian as of the same opinion. He says, 
''For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the ivife; 
that is, so far as their matrimonial converse is lawful, 
holy, and honorable, if they were both of the same faith; 
and in many instances the unbeliever, whether husband or 
wife, hath been converted to God by the instrumentality 
of the believing partner. The former sense, however, 
seems to be the primary meaning of the apostle. Else 
were your children unclean, and must be looked upon as 
unfit to be admitted to those peculiar ordinances by which 
the seed of God's people are distinguished; but noiv are 
they holy, confessedly ; and are as readily admitted to 
baptism as if both the parents were Christians ; so that 
the case, you see, is in efi'ect decided by this prevailing 
practice. So Dr. Doddridge, who adds, ' On the maturest 
and most impartial consideration of this text, I must judge 
it to refer to infant baptism. Nothing can be more appar- 
ent than that the word holy signifies persons who might 
be permitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of 
God's people. See Ex. xix, 6; Deut. vii, 6; xiv, 2; xxvi, 
19 ; Ezra ix, 2 ; Acts x, 28, etc. And as for the inter- 
pretation, which so many of our brethren, the Baptists, 
have contended for, that holy signifies legitimate, and ityi- 
clean, illegitimate, not to urge that this seems an un scrip- 
tural sense of the word, nothing can be more evident than 



328 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PEEEECTIOX. [Paet II 



that the argument will bj no means bear it; for it would 
be proving a thing by itself — idem per idem — to argue 
that the converse of the parents was lawful, because the 
children were not bastards; whereas all who thought the 
converse of the parents unlawful, must of course think 
that the children were illegitimate.' Thus also Dr. Whit- 
by: 'He doth not say, else were your cTdldren bastards, 
hut now they are legitimate, but else ivere they unclean ; that 
is, heathen children, not to be owned as a holy seed, and 
therefore not to be admitted into covenant with God, as 
belonging to his holy people. That this is the true im- 
port of the words azaddoza and ayta^ will be apparent from 
the Scriptures, in which the heathen is styled the unclean, 
in opposition to the Jews, who were in covenant with 
God, and therefore styled a holy people. Hence it is evi- 
dent that the Jews looked upon themselves as douXo'. dsoo 
y.addpoi, the cleaji servants of God, ISeh. ii, 20, and upon 
all the heathen and their offspring as unclean, by reason 
of their want of circumcision and the sign of the cove- 
nant. Hence, whereas it is said that Joshua circumcised 
the people, chap, v, 4, the LXX say -zrntxddapvj, he 
cleansed them. Moreover, of heathen chiLiren, and such 
as are not circumcised, they say they are not horn in holi- 
ness ; but they, on the contrary, are styled a-iofxa ay.ov, a 
holy seed, Isa. vi, 13; Ezra ix, 2; and the offspring from 
them, and from those proselytes which had embraced their 
religion, are said to be born in holiness, and so thought fit 
to be admitted to circumcision, or baptism, or whatsoever 
might initiate them into the Jewish Church ; and therefore 
to this sense of the words holy and unclean, the apostle 
may be here most rationally supposed to allude. And 
though one of the parents be still a heathen, yet is the de- 
nomination to be taken from the better, and so their off- 
spring are to be esteemed, not as heathen, that is, unclean, 
but holy, as all Christians by denomination are. Hence, 
then, the argument for infant baptism runs thus : If the 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



329 



holy seed among the Jews was therefore to be circumcised 
and made federally holy, by receiving the sign of the cov- 
enant, and being admitted into the number of God's holy 
people, because they were born in sanctity, then, by like 
reason, the holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted to 
baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian covenant, 
the laver of regeneration, and so be entered into the soci- 
ety of the Christian Church. So also Clemens Alexan- 
drinus and Tertullian." This is truly a good comment on 
this passage, which shows us that the sanctification taught 
in it is ceremonial^ and used in the Hebrew sense of the 
word. 

Dr. Adam Clarke says, '•'■The unbelieving husband is 
sanctified by the wifef^ or, rather, is to be reputed as 
sanctified, on account of his wife ; she being a Christian 
woman, and he, though a heathen, being by marriage one 
flesh with her, her sanctity, as far as it refers to outward 
things, may be considered as imputed to him, so as to ren- 
der their connection not unlawful. The case is the same 
when the wife is a heathen and the husband a Christian. 
The word sanctification, here, is to be applied much more 
to the Christian state than to any moral change in the 
persons ; for "Aytot, saints, is a common term for Chris- 
tians — THOSE WHO ARE BAPTIZED INTO THE FAITH OF 

Christ;"* and, as its corresponding term, o^B^np, k^dho- 
shim, signified all the Jews who were in the covenant 
of God by circumcision. The heathens in question were 
considered to be in this holy state by means of their con- 
nection with those who were, by their Christian profession, 
saints. Else loere your children unclean. If this kind of 
relative sanctification were not allowed, the children of 
these persons could not be received into the Christian 
Church, nor enjoy any rights or privileges as Christians ; 

* Reader, please notice this sense which Dr. Clarke gives S.yioi, which we 
have put in capitals. It will hold good in every passage in the New Test- 
ament. 

28 



330 KEYIE^ OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



but the Cliurcli of God never scrupled to admit sucli chil- 
dren as members, just as well as she did those who had 
sprung from parents, both of whom were Christians. The 
Jews considered a child as born out of holiness, whose par- 
ents were not proselytes at the time of the birth, though 
afterward thej became proselytes. On the other hand, 
they considered the childi^en of heathens born in holiness, 
provided the parents became proselytes before the birth. 
All the children of the heathens were reputed unclean by 
the Jews, and all their own children holy. See Dr. Light- 
foot. This shows clearly what the apostle's meaning is." 

The comment of Dr. F. G-. Hibbard is so strong, forci- 
ble, and clear on our text that we think it proper, notwith- 
standing the authority already advanced, to quote what he 
says on the meaning of our word. This is not necessary as 
to the word in this text alone, but it seems to throw light 
on the whole subject in a general 'vVay, so as to prevent the 
reader from giving too much sanctity to the word sanctify, 
and thereby deceiving himself. Mr. Hibbard says : ^' If 
the reader will attend strictly to the occasion and scope of 
Paul's reasoning, as above described, he will find no diffi- 
culty in fixing the sense and application of these terms. 
When we understand the subject of which an author is 
treating, no difficulty can occur in determining the sense 
in which he employs words, if he employs them according 
to their usual acceptation. To apply an author's words 
so as to make them prove a sentiment which he had not 
at first intended, and for which he had not himself em- 
ployed them, is to do him an injustice, that no honest 
expositor would knowingly do. When we undertake to 
represent the opinions of another, we assume an obliga- 
tion, from common honesty and fairness, to use his own 
words as he used them, and to prove nothing more or 
less, or different, by them, than he himself intended. Let 
the reader remember, then, that the subject before the 
apostle's mind was not one that related to civil law or to 



Aug. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



331 



civil relations, as such, but wliicli came solely under the 
cognizance of ecclesiastical law. It was solely an eccle- 
siastical question. The words sanctified, unclean, and 
holt/, therefore, are to be understood, not in a civil, or a 
moral, but in a ceremonial sense. In order to understand 
the import of these terms, in this connection, we must go 
back to Jewish usage, for the apostle uses these words 
here in their Levitical sense.* It is true he was writ- 
ing to a Christian Church in Greece, and that he em- 
ployed the Greek language, but the subject was one of 
Hebrew origin, and the terms were employed in strict 
CONFORMITY TO HEBREW USE.f To this usc alonc, there- 
fore, can we appeal. The question, then, is, What is the 
Hebrew use of these words? 

As I do not consider that our English version gives 
the right turn to this passage, I shall first give the sense, 
as I understand it, in a free paraphrase : ^ For the unbe- 
lieving husband is made ceremonially clean to the believ- 
ing wife, and the unbelieving wife is made ceremonially 
clean to the believing husband ; so that it is now admis- 
sible and proper, according to Christian distinctions, that 
they should live together in conjugal relation, and not, as 
under the Mosaic law, be obliged to separate and break 
up the marriage union. Were it otherwise — that is, did 
not Christianity regard the unbelieving partner as cere- 
monially clean to the believing — it would follow that the 
Christian Church would reckon the children of such a 
marriage among the unclean, that is, among those who are 
not in covenant Avith God ; but the fact that the Church re- 
gards all such children, as well as all those whose parents 
are both Christians, as holy — they having been baptized 
and admitted among the covenanted people — proves that 
their parents are reckoned as ceremonially clean to each 

* They have no other sense. 

f I do hope the reader will duly consider how sensibly the Doctor speaks 
here. 



832 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Pakt II. 



other.' In support of this sense, I adduce the following 
considerations : First. The language of the text allows it. 
The words rjyidarat . . . iv rrj yuvarA, Tiegiastai 671 te gu- 
naiJciy which we translate, Is sanctified to the wife, are, to 
say no more, as susceptible of this turn of the sense as 
of the one given in our English version ; and so of the 
phrase ■^yidarai . . . h rui dvdpl, Qiegiastai en to andri,) 
is sanctified to the husband. Our common version says 
the unbelieving party is sanctified ^ by ' the believing ; but 
this certainly makes no sense whatever. IfoiVy we ask, 
does the believing party sanctify the unbelieving? This 
is a question that can never be answered. The truth is, 
God himself, and he alone, sanctified the whole Gentile 
world at the opening of the Christian dispensation; that is, 
he abolished those distinctions of clean and unclean, as 
they applied to Jews and Gentiles formerly, and as they 
were now being applied, at Corinth, to believers and unbe- 
lievers. If the reader will turn to the Acts of the Apos- 
tles — chaps. X and xi — he will perceive, in the extraordi- 
nary vision of Peter and in his own exposition of it sub- 
sequently, in what manner God was pleased to enlighten 
that apostle on this subject, and to deliver him from the 
force of his Jewish prejudices. Peter had doubts of the 
propriety of ' going in to men uncircumcised, and eating 
with them,' or even preaching the Gospel to them. He 
called them ' common,^ that is, ' unclean.^ He thought it 
w^ould defile him, unfit him for religious privileges and 
duties. But God informed him that he had sanctified the 
Gentile world; Jewish distinctions w^ere abolished; it was 
lawful to have intercourse with Gentiles. ' What, there- 
fore, God hath cleansed, [or sanctified, haddptffs,'] call not 
thou common,' that is, 'unclean.'' 

But what is the nature of this sanctification, or cleans- 
ing of the Gentile world? Certainly the sanctification 
of which we now speak gives to the Gentile, or unbe- 
liever, no Church privileges without personal holiness. 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



333 



The phraseology is strictly conformable to Jewish usages, 
and it is here employed in the lowest sense in which the 
word sanctify was used in their religious vocabulary.* 
Yet so clearly defined, and so strongly marked are all 
the circumstances of the case, that of the real meaning 
of the term, in the above passage, cited from the Acts, 
and in the place before us, there can be no doubt. It 
merely extended so far as to sanction the external inter- 
course of Cliristians tvith unbelievers. They might now 
dwell together in any of the natural or civil relations ; as 
parents and children, as husbands and wives, as fellow- 
citizens, as neighbors, etc., without any detriment to 
Church relations on the part of the believer, so long as 
his spirit and deportment accorded with the Gospel. All 
the innocent relations of life, whether social or commer- 
cial, might now be enjoyed between the Jew and the 
Gentile — the believer and the unbeliever.f And thus did 
Peter understand his vision ; for afterward, when he stood 
before Cornelius and his Gentile friends, he says, evidently 
by way of explanation, of so unusual an event, ' Ye know 
how that it is unlawful for a man that is a Jew to keep 

*'The reader will here observe, that, in the last two full periods, our au- 
thor seems to insinuate the doctrine of entire sanctijication, as such, and, 
also, that the word has a highest sense, since he speaks of it as here used in 
its " lowest sense." Most respectfully, as to this, would we differ from Dr. 
Hibbard, and were it not for anticipating our argument, and assuming our 
conclusion, we would say that the word has no higher and no loioer sense 
than simply the one which may be applied to every passage in the Bible, 
namely, to make ceremoniaUij holy. 

■{■ " I hope the reader will form a just opinion of this subject. The distinc- 
tions of clean and nnclean were at first purely artificial, and were established 
by the will of God, not in the nature of the things themselves. It is 
plain, therefore, that to sanctify these unclean things to the use of Chris- 
tians, no positive change was required in the things themselves, but only 
that the arbitrary prohibition of the Lawgiver be taken off. This sancti- 
fication, then, was, after all, merely of a negative character. After the 
abrogation of the Levitical code, all things reverted back to their original 
character. It then could be said, ' Nothing is unclean of itself ' All things 
are pure,' Levitically ; ' Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be re- 
jected.' " [This marginal note of Dr. Hibbard is certainly clear and 
strong.] 



334 



EEVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



company, or come unto one of another nation; but God 
liath. showed me that I should not call any man common, 
or unclean.'' Peter considered that this sanctification of the 
Gentiles extended so far only as to make it lawful to 
have company and intercourse with them. This is ex- 
actly the sense of the word sanctify, in 1 Cor. vii, 14, 
^For the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife,' 
etc. Two parties may lawfully live together in this rela- 
tion, though one be an unbeliever — the conjugal oneness 
is not now disturbed by the distinctions of clean and un- 
clean, as they were formerly applied. ^Hytddrai, hegiastai, 
is a conjugated form of the verb d^:aCw, hagia^o, which 
means to separate, consecimte, sanctify, make holy, etc. It 
answers, in the Old Testament, to the Hebrew is^^p, 
kadasJi, which, in the Piel conjugation signifies to inaJce 
Jwly, to sanctify, to hallow, consecrate. Every person or 
thing among the Jews devoted to religious use was 
deemed sanctified. Thus their priests, their altars, their 
temples, persons, sacred utensils, etc., were sanctified. 
But does this sense of dytd^w, hagiazo, apply to the pas- 
sage under consideration? Could it be said of the unbe- 
lieving husband, or wife, that he, or she, was in any sense 
devoted to religion? Was there any thing approaching 
the idea of religious consecration? . . . The exact 
point to which the apostle was arguing, is this; namely. 
Whether it is lawful, according to the distinctions of clean 
and unclean persons, established by the law of Moses, for 
a Christian and pagan to dwell together in marriage rela- 
tions ? The apostle decided that such a union was now 
lawful, in a ceremonial sense. 

" To prove this position he needed only to show that 
Jewish distinctions touching the case were abolished; or, 
in other words, God had now sanctified the Gentile 
world — the unbeliever to the behever. Now, it is per- 
fectly plain that the sanctification here spoken of extends 
no further than to authorize the continuance of an ex- 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



335 



ternal relation, innocent in itself, between a believer and 
an unbeliever. The case was this : A pagan husband be- 
comes converted to Christianity, while his wife remains 
an idolater. Judaizing teachers step in and say to him, 
' It is not lawful for you to live with her,' and they ap- 
peal to the law of Moses, where a Jew is forbidden to 
live in marriage relation with a Gentile. The apostle 
comes in and says, 'If she be pleased to dwell with you, 
put her not away, for God hath abolished these Jewish 
distinctions, and has thereby sanctified the Gentile world, 
and in doing this, has sanctified your unbelieving wife to 
you.' Now, does not every one perceive that the nature 
and sum of this sanctification was no more, or less, or 
other, than a mere sanction of this external marriage 
relation ? a rendering it ceremonially lawful for them to 
live together, so that the Church privileges of the believ- 
ing partner should not thereby be impaired? And such 
is OFTEN the meaning of the Avord sanctify^ whether it is 
expressed by dyidZio, liagiazo, or xo.Odrn'^u)^ katharizo, or 
any word belonging to the same family. Thus: 1 Tim. 
iv, 5, *For it [the creature of God] [(LytaUzat, Jiagiazetai,'] 
is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.' Certain 
men had arisen in the Church, and commanded to abstain 
from certain meats, as being unclean. Verse 3. The 
apostle taught that God had made all things alike for man's 
good, and no creature of his to be thus rejected, as pos- 
sessing any innate or natural pollution, but all was to be 
received with thanksgiving. If, therefore, we receive any 
of his creatures with thanksgiving and prayer, they were 
thereby sanctified to us; that is, it was made lawful for 
us to receive and use them. In 1 Cor. x, 23, where the 
apostle is speaking to the same point, instead of saying, 
* All things are clean to me,' he says, ' All things are 
[^l^rtTiv, exesli7i,'] lawful for me ;' that is, I have a right to 
eat of all meats. See verse 3, and chapter vi, 12. 
Those meats which were unlawful for a Jew to use 



336 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



were called unclean, tlie same idea being conveyed by 
both words. See also Titus i, 15 ; Rom. xiv, 14, 20. In 
Luke xi, 41, we are taught by a proper use of the crea- 
tures of God all things become pure to us; that is, law- 
ful for us to use. This, then, we consider to be the 
sense of the word sanctified, in 1 Cor. vii, 14. The un- 
believing partner is made ceremonialli/ laivful to the be- 
lieving, so far as the conjugal relation extends." (Bap- 
tism, pp. 125-130.) 

Reader, ^\e have now given you our two standard com- 
mentators and Dr, Hibbard, our standard on Christian 
baptism, on the meaning of this passage. Not only do 
they agree, we may say in every point, but they make 
out clearly the very two particulars which we are argu- 
ing ; namely, first, that the word is used here, and as they 
teach of its general use, as a Hehrew term ; second, that it 
is used in a ceremonial, and not in a moral sense, as if to 
purify the soul from sin. Had Dr. Hibbard been em- 
ployed to write on this word as he has, and had he inten- 
tionally written for the purpose of helping us in this argu- 
ment, we are at a loss to see how he could have written 
more to our purpose, not only on this passage, but con- 
sidered upon the whole. Were we to give our translation 
and sense of the text, additional to those great men 
quoted, yet in sense agreeing with them, we would first 
off'er two remarks. (1.) There is nothing in the marriage 
relation that could sanctify one party to the other in the 
least. Marriage has nothing to do with the act of sanc- 
tifying. We can not say, with any degree of accuracy at 
all, that one of the parties is sanctified by the other; for 
there was, one would think, no marriage relation between 
Cornelius and Peter, yet the former had been sanctified so 
that the latter held fellowship Avith him according to the 
Divine direction. And sivine are just as much sanctified 
to Jews, who were in the Mosaic dispensation forbidden 
to eat them, as an unbeliever is sanctified respecting a 



Arg. XVn.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



337 



believer. (2.) The verb in our text, in both instances, is in 
the perfect tense, and conveys a twofold idea, {a) It 
means that the act on the part of God, whereby he sanc- 
tified the whole Gentile world — that is, made them cere- 
mo7iially holy — was perfected at some particular time 
previous to the apostle's writing our text, and hence he 
put the word in the perfect tense, the same as we would 
in our language, to express a past and complete act. But 
Greek verbs are also used in this tense when the writer 
means to convey the idea that the effects or results of 
their actions are yet remaining at the time in which one 
writes. Now, this, as an act, merely, or as a deed of 
sanctifying, took place when God broke down the middle 
wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, and so de- 
stroyed all national and ceremonial distinctions. 

As to the effects of the act, they remained till the time 
of the apostle's writing, and are yet in effect. On this 
account, since an English verb will only express one of 
the peculiarities of a Greek one, in the perfect tense, un- 
less we add an idea, our translators rendered the verb in 
the present^ as being the nearer to the sense, and said " is 
sanctified.'''^ We may, however, by supplying the points 
suggested, translate by the perfect^ and carry the present 
idea with us as to the results of the action, thus : " For 
the unbeUeving husband ['Hyiaffrai^ hegiastai] has been 
MADE [ceremonialli/] holy [when God broke down the 
middle wall of partition destroying distinctions] AS to the 
wife, [and he is ceremonially holy yet,y' etc The gram- 
matical authority for this way of translating will be ex- 
plained in full in our concluding argument. That the Greek 
iv, en, means as to, in respect to, etc., either of which may 
be used in this place, see Dr. Robinson's Greek-English 
Lexicon to the New Testament at 2, b, y. So, also, it is 
used in Eph. ii, 11 : rd eOvrj (xapxi, {ta ethne en sarki,) the 
Gentiles as to flesh; in James iii, 2: Et X6yo) ob -raCst, 
(ei tis en logo ou ptaiei,) if any one AS to word offered not 



338 



REVIEW t)F WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Therefore, finally, on tMs text we find much to support 
our view as to the regularity of the word in the Hebrew 
use and ceremonial sense. 

20. Rev. xxii, 11 : ''He that is unjust, let him be unjust 
still ; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he 
that is righteous, let him be righteous still ; and he that is 
holy, let him be holy still." 

On this passage we observe, (1.) That the latter clause 

may be translated thus : 6 dtxato^, dixaccodrjro} en xa\ 6 dyLoq, 

ayiaad-qrti) 1-l — the JUST man, let him be made (or es- 
teemed) JUST still; and the holy man let him be made 
(or esteemed) holy still. (2.) Any one can see from this 
passage that there is proof from Scripture, as well as from 
grammar, for that which is argued in former arguments, 
namely, that the two Greek verbs, in the above quotation, 
signify to make that luhicTi is pointed out hy their respective 
primitives.'^ (3.) The word " unjust," in the first part of 
the text, seems to be employed, in its usual sense, to indi- 
cate the soul of a wricked and unregenerate man. The 
same word when repeated, where it says " unjust still," 
seems to speak of the same soul when beyond the hope of 
mercy — perhaps after the general judgment. The word 
" filthy," used twice in the same manner, seems to refer to 
the same man, but is used to designate him as to his out- 
ward filth, the fruit of his unjust soul, ceremonially spoken 
of him, and opposed to " holy " in the latter part of the 
verse. The next half of the verse, where it speaks of the 
JUST man, refers to a justified soul. Where it speaks of a 
lioly man, it seems to indicate the same man, only it de- 
scribes him from an outward stand-point. (4.) A careful 
examination of the text appears to show that St. John im- 
itated the Hebrew poets; for he uses what the Hebrew 
grammarian would call " Antithetic Parallelism." Dr. 
Nordheimer — Hebrew Grammar, § 1126 — gives an in- 
stance of this kind of poetry w^here he says, "We also 

* See Crosby's Greek Grammar, g 318, b. 



Abq. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



339 



find two verses in antithesis, in each of which the second 
clause is the consequence of the first, as in Isa. i, 19, 20." 
Omitting the Hebrew words, he translates the passage 
thus : 

" If ye consent and obey, 
The good things of the earth shall ye enjoy ; 
But if ye refuse and rebel, 
By the sword shall ye be consumed." 

You will see that this is very much like the English ver- 
sion of our text, because in it " the second clause," all 
through, " is a consequence of the first." If St. John 
used the Hebrew style, which looks likely, it is probable 
that he used the word in the Hchreiv sense. (5.) Mr. 
Wesley's note on the text stands thus: ""He that is rigid- 
eous — As if he had said. The final judgment is at hand; 
after which the condition of all mankind wull admit of no 
change forever. Unrighteous — Unjustified, filthy — un- 
sanctified, unholy." Mr. Benson follows Mr. Wesley in 
sense exactly, find on the phrase, " He that is righteous," 
he says, " That lives and dies justified, or accounted right- 
eous : let him be, he shall be, righteous still. Now, reader, 
observe, (a) Both these great and good men believe that 
this is a prophecy of wdiat the Judge will say at the Very 
time of the final judgment, (b) They believe that, after 
that, " the condition of all mankind will admit of no 
change.'' These are two points of theology that w^e think 
every orthodox man can readily believe. (c) But they 
also teach that the righteous — that is, the just, the duawc, 
dikaios — remains the same thing ; and, if so, he is not 
condemned, but eternally saved, as a JUST man. His 
" condition . . . will admit of no change." {d) But 
these good men believed in a greater work than the re- 
generation of the just, which they called " entire sancti- 
fication," and now, from the judgment-seat of Christ, 
they are sending the just into eternity, to remain such 
STILL, " to admit of NO change." 



340 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



From their own ground, therefore, we are authorized to 
conclude, (1.) That if entire sanctification, as they used 
the phrase, is at all conceivable, it must be either simul- 
taneous with justification, or that regeneration, which ac- 
companies the latter, is a sinless work, or the Judge would 
not say, " Let him be just still," either of which altern- 
atives will destroy the whole theory of entu'e sanctifica- 
tionists without remedy. I do hope the reader will prop- 
erly appreciate the doctrine of our text just under this 
idea; for if absolute purity of soul is not every-Tvhere 
in the Scriptures supposed, as the concomitant of the 
just man, and undeniably taught in this passage, Mr. 
"Wesley and Mr. Benson themselves being judges, then 
there is no absolute purity for a soul, even when its des- 
tiny is fixed beyond the approval of the bar of God. 
(2.) This passage shows that the doctrine of a former 
argument is correct, wherein it is held that the new birth 
is sufficient for man's eternal salvation. (3.) A subse- 
quent and greater work than regeneration, so conceived 
of, is entirely useless^ since a man can be saved without it. 
(4.) The verb to make holy, found in this text, abso- 
lutely can not be taken in the sense of a moral., internal 
work of the soul on these characters, compatible with a 
blessing additional to regeneration ; for the doctrine is, in 
the words of Mr. Watson, that sanctification in this 
world must be complete ; the whole nature must be sanc- 
tified, all sin must be utterly abolished, or the soul can 
never be admitted into the glorious presence of God."* 
But these go into heaven simply justified and possessed 
of that birth of the Spirit which always attends justifica- 
tion ; therefore, granting to our dear brethren, who con- 
ceive of this word as an internal act of removing sin from 
the soul in "utterly abolishing" it, what will they do with 
its fo7'ce and the necessity of complete sanctity when these 
persons pass from the "final judgment," without ever 

* Theological Dictionary, Article Sanctification, 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 341 



having received the action of this word on their souls at 
all, into the eternal heaven ? Is it not folly to define the 
word in a moral sense, this twentieth time that we find it 
in the New Testament, when the nineteen times afi'ord the 
one Hebrew ceremonial signification? Since this passage 
shows the final salvation of just men', it precisely agrees 
with Matt. XXV, 46 : These [the wicked] shall go away 
into everlasting punishment : but the [dixawi^ dikaioi] just 
into life eternal." The word in question, therefore, seems 
to have no other signification than its usual one, both 
Ilehreiv and ceremonial. 

21 and 22. Heb. ii, 11 : " For both he that sanctifieth 
and they who are sanctified are all of one." Able com- 
mentators we may depend on here and in other places of 
this Epistle to settle the meaning of our word. Here Ave 
find it occurring twice. Dr. Adam Clarke thus comments : 
"The word 6 dytaXwv does not merely signify one who 
sanctifies or makes holy, but one who makes atonement 
or reconciliation to God, and answers to the Hebrew 
\cap}ier^ to expiate. See Ex. xxix, 33-36. He that 
sanctifies is He that makes atonement, and they who are 
sanctified are they who receive that atonement, and, being 
reconciled unto God, become his children by adoption, 
through grace. In this sense our Lord uses the word, 
John xvii, 19 : For their sakes I sanctify myself — oTtsp 
aoTwu syo) dyia^io i/iaurov — on their account I consecrate 
myself to be a sacrifice. This is the sense in which 

THIS WORD IS used GENERALLY, THROUGH THIS EpiSTLE." 

It is clear, then, that this author, an advocate of com- 
plete sanctity, does not here take our word in the sense 
to cleanse the soul morally. In fact, if any one should take 
such a view of it in this place, his doctrine would prove 
too much ; for the language of the sentence, as it stonds, 
shows us that, as the word is used twice, it must mean 
the same thing each time, the same in the active that it 
does in the passive voice. This being so, since the con- 



342 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



text shows that the apostle is magnifying Jesus Christ as 
the Great Atoner, the Great High-Priest, who " tasted 
death for every man," and since this tasting of death for 
all is the same in sense as the expression " he that sanc- 
tifieth," such a view of the word would not only be ine:3^- 
plicable, as to the text, but it would show that He had 
"wholly sanctified" "every man." Professor Moses Stu- 
art, a man of known learning and ability, translates our 
text thus : " Moreover, both he who maketh expiation, and 
they for whom expiation is made, are one." He then 
comments on this passage thus : " The word ayia^o) seems 
not to have been w^ell understood here by most comment- 
ators, and a particular investigation is required in order 
to explain the sense in which it is used in our Epistle. 
^AyidZo) corresponds to the Hebrew L'np, Ji'"lpn, which 
often means to consecrate to God as an offering; e. g., 
Lev. xxii, 2 : D'a^^pp ; Septuagint : 'AyidZuoai /lot, et 
alibi. The verb H'^ip also means, by a natural association 
of ideas, to expiate^ to make atonement for ; e. g.. Job i, 5 : 
Drnj2j, lie made atonement for tlteni, where, however, the 
Septuagint has kxaMpi^ev adroug; so Ex. xix, 10, 14, and 
Josh, vii, 13, according to Gesenius, where the Septuagint 
has dyviffov, r^yiaat and dyiaaov. Compare also Ezek. xliv, 
19. The verb ayidZu) also corresponds in the Septuagint 
to the Hebrew nsi), which is the appropriate word to des- 
ignate the making of an atonement, to expiate; e. g., Ex. 
xxix, 33 : They shall eat those things D3 -^SJ with which 
expiation was made. Septuagint: 'Ev o\q yiyidadr^awj iv au- 
Toiq ; Ex. xxix, 36 : And thou shalt purify the altar, 
vj?^, when thou inakest an expiatory sacrifice upon it. 
Septuagint : ^Ev aytdXev^ <T£ auTw. From the usus 
loquendi of the Hebrew, and the Septuagint, then, it is 
plain that aytd^oj may mean to make expiation, to atone. 
Our Epistle presents some plain instances of the use of 
dyta^u) in this sense ; e. g., x, 10, according to which will 
\fjyid<7p.£vot i(T/xiv] we are atoned for ; that is, expiation is 



aeg. xvii.j perfection and sanctification. 343 



made for us. How? The writer immediately subjoins, 

Jed rrjc; -KputsOopaq too a(I)tj.aroq ^ [rjffoo Xpidrou iwaTza^^ which 

necessarily refers, rjyidaiievoi, to the 'propitiatory offering 
of Christ; and, consequently, it has the sense which I 
have given to it. Compare, also, x, 14, 29 ; so xiii, 11, 12. 
For the bodies of those animals, whose blood was carried 
into the sanctuary by the high-priest, as a sin-offering, 
were burned without the camp ; wherefore J esus, ha dyidar) 
the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate ; 
where dyidarj plainly means to make expiation for^ to atone 
for. Both of these passages compare well with that 
under consideration, and all these predicate dyidrrtioq of 
the sufferings and death of Christ; for in our text, in the 
very next preceding clause, the writer has spoken of 
Christ as rersXsKo/xivov did -aOrjij.dru)> ; and he had just de- 
clared that ^ Jesus, by the grace of God, had tasted death 
for alV Compare, also, v, 17. We may, then, render 
6 re dyid^wv xa\ ol ayta^ofjLsvoi, hoth he who makes expiation 
for sin, and they for whom exjnation is made. 133 ip^^ 
Drh. The usus loquendi of the Epistle seems not merely 
to justify, but to demand, this interpretation. So also 
Ernesti, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and others." 

These words of as learned a man as Professor Stuart, 
agreeing in sense with those other learned writers, whose 
names he gives, and exactly with the words of Dr. Adam 
Clarke, ought to carry great weight in this argument. Dr. 
Thomas Coke, of Oxford University, says : Jesus, the 
great Sanctifier, who engages and consecrates men to the 
service of God, and they who are sanctified — that is, con- 
secrated and introduced to God with such acceptance — 
are all of one family ; all, in a sense, the seed of Abra- 
ham, by faith."^ 

On our text we notice, (1.) As to the sense, we just 
agree with the authors quoted, who hold that the word 
means, to make an atonement. (2.) We still hold that, 

* Comment in loco. 



344 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEREECTiaN. [Part II. 



'primarily, our word means to make holy, as used in this 
text. This will appear on a moment's reflection. The 
high-priest, under the Levitical priesthood, ''took the 
blood of calves and of goats with water, and scarlet wool, 
and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the 
PEOPLE." Compare Heb. ix, 19, with Lev. xvi, 15, 16, 
by which ceremony, as the high-priest of the people, he 
MADE them HOLY, that is, ceremonially so, so that through 
him and the atonement which he thus made, they could 
approach God, and thus receive the benefits of that expia- 
tion, and know that they were the people of God, by his 
divine manifestations, from time to time; their sacrifices 
being thus "acceptable" to God, and themselves permit- 
ted to draw nigh unto him. Now, the author of the book 
of Hebrews lays hold on this idea, and shows us that 
Christ died " for every man," and thus became the world's 
high-priest, having entered the heaven of heavens through 
the vail of his own body, taking the merits of his own 
blood, corresponding to the blood of beasts, under the 
Mosaic dispensation, with which sanctification was then 
made. In this way he made the whole human family 
ceremonially holy, by simply procuring for them — we 
mean in the sense of this word — access to God, or the 
privilege of approach to Him, abolishing distinctions be- 
tween Jews and Gentiles, breaking down the middle wall 
of partition, etc. Hence, we see that the word primarily, 
as used throughout the Hebrew, means, to make holy. 
How ? By means of the sacrificial offering of the Man of 
Calvary for sin. Whence arises the secondary meaning, 
to make an atonement, as given by Dr. Clarke and Pro- 
fessor Stuart, so that their phrase, to make an atonement, 
or, to expiate, and our phrase from the primary sense, to 
MAKE HOLY, ceremonially, by means of a sacrificial 
OFFERING, and so to atone, are the same exactly. 

We conclude, then, (1.) That our word still holds its 
Hebrew use precisely; since {a) it agrees with the sense 



arg. xvit.] perfection and sanctification. 



345 



of our text, (b) It would be absurd to depart from the 
Hebrew sense in an epistle, like that to the Hebrews, 
where almost every idea is compared with some corre- 
sponding Hebrew idea of the old dispensation, perhaps, as 
much so, as if we should say that the word high-priest," 
as found in the New Testament, means entirely another 
class of men, or something different from what it meant 
in the Mosaic period. The apostle was writing to con- 
verted Jews, Hebrew people, and he used Jewish terms, 
customs, rites, ordinances, and ideas, in order to make the 
Gospel of Christ plain. (2.) We have failed once more to 
find the word used in the sense of a moral purifying from 
sin, as to the soul. 

23. Heb. ix, 13: "For if the blood of bulls and of 
goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
cleanseth as to the purification of the flesh, how much 
more shall the blood of Christ, who by an eternal Spirit 
offered himself without spot to God, purify our conscience, 
from works which cause death, so that we may serve the 
living God !" (Professor Stuart's translation.) We use 
this translation to save space. The same author thus 
comments : " "Ayta^^ei^ used in respect to external rites, de- 
noted that the person rendered dyca^o/xs'^og was clean or 
purified from all ritual uncleanness ; that is, had per- 
formed all the necessary rites of external purification, so 
that he could draw near to God as a worshiper, in a 
regular manner. Thus much, our author avers, was ac- 
complished by the ceremonial rites of the law." Dr. 
Adam Clarke on the phrase, Sandifieth to the purifying 
of the flesh, says, " Answers the end proposed by the 
law, namely, to remove legal disabilities and punishments ; 
having the body and its interests particularly in view, 
though adumbrating or typifying the soul and its con- 
cerns." Dr. Coke on our text says, " The legal impuri- 
ties debarred the Jews from an attendance upon the 
public service, but they were freed from these by the 



346 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



sacrifices, washings, and sprinklings appointed by the 
Mosaic law, which are called carnal ordinances, verse 10, 
and so became qualified again for the public worship ; and 
of this the apostle speaks under the notion of sanctifica- 
tion, as typical of that internal sanctification which he 
speaks of in verse 14." Observe, however, that the Doc- 
tor's internal sanctification j'' "in verse 14," is not ex- 
pressed by ayid^u), hagiazo, but by xadapiti, (Jcathariei,) 
shall purify I We would translate our text ayid^ec Tzpd^ rijv 

aapxdq xadaporr^-a^ MAKETH HOLY as to the purification of 

the flesh. This text still adds strength to our argument ; 
for, (1.) Learned men are in our favor as to the two points 
in question, namely, that the word is used as Hebrew, and 
in the ceremonial sense. (2.) All this is evident from the 
text itself, and without any man's comment. (3.) The 
blood of bulls and of goats can not "wholly sanctify" or 
remove inward and actual sin. (4.) When the apostle 
made this strong contrast between the benefit of the blood 
of beasts and that of the blood of Christ, why did he not 
say, " How much more shall the blood of Christ . . . 
sanctify your conscience ?" Why did he not use a^'jao-et, 
(hagiasei,) shall sanctify, instead of xadapiti, (kathariei,) 
shall cleanse? Was it not because he, being both a Jew 
and a Christian as to knowledge, knew that hagiazo did 
not mean to purify morally? Had it possessed such a 
signification, the very nature of the contrast would have 
induced him to employ it. It was not left out for the sake 
of euphony, as we have every reason to judge, for he was 
in the habit of repeating this very word when he was rea- 
soning on such topics as allowed him to mention it, as in 
Heb. ii, 11, and 1 Cor. vii, 14 ; but now in a contrast 
where he could hardly help but use it, he singularly omits 
it and takes another word, as we are led to believe, because 
the latter means to cleanse morally, but it did not, and, 
therefore, would not have conveyed the very idea which he 
designed to express. Add to this that the New Testament 



Arc. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



347 



gives instances of the adjective y.aOapo^^ {katharo^^ pure — 
which is- the root of xaOapiXw^ (katharizo,) to make pure, the 
same as a^^coc;^ (hagios,) holy, is the root of ayid'^u), (hagiazo,) 
to make holy — as applied to the heart and conscience of 
man; but perhaps never is aytuq^ (hagios,) holy, so used, 
and even if it was, it might only mean that the heart was 
set apart to God, irrespective, essentially, of the idea of 
purity implied in it. Thus, Matt, v, 8, Blessed are ol xad- 
dpoi rfj xapdia, {hoi kathavoi te kardia,) the pure as to the 
heart. So 1 Tim. i, 5, and iii, 9. We think, therefore, 
that the use of the one so often to express an internal 
purity, either by itself or its root, and the other not so 
used in any passage, nor its root,* to indicate an internal 
work, so far as we know, is corroborated by the manner 
of the apostle's phraseology in this text. This borders 
closely on a demonstration of our view of the word upon 
the Avhole. 

24. Heb. X, 10 : " By the which will we are sanctified 
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
all." Professor Stuart translates, "By this will expiation 
is made for us." In his comment on chap, ii, 11, he thus 
speaks on this text, According to which, r,yia(rp.hoL iatih^ 
we are atoned for; that is, expiation is made for us. 
How? The writer immediately subjoins, did rr^q r.poacpopdq 
TOO ampazo': ^ Ir^aou Xpiazou l(pd-a^^ which necessarily refers 
ijyiaffiiivoi to the propitiatory offering of Christ ; and con- 
sequently it has the sense which I have given to it." Dr. 
Winer makes the very same reference that Professor 
Stuart does. He says, " In Heb. x, 10, it was not neces- 
sary to write did r^c 7:po<y(pepdq rob ampaxoc; . . . r^(^ 
i(pd-a^. The last word relates just as well to rjyiaGiii- 
vo?."y Dr. Adam Clarke, to the same effect, says, "We 
believe in Him, find redemption in His blood, and are 

* In 1 Cor. vii, 34, ayios is so used that its force is applied to the mind, 
but not so as to affect our argument. 

t Idioms of the New Testament, ^ 19, 2, b. 



348 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 

sanctified unto God, through the sacrificial offering of Ids 
hodyr 

The apostle is still speaking of the Jewish mode of 
making an atonement, showing that that mode is abol- 
ished, and that it is now the will of God that there should 
be another mode, not by sacrifices, but by the ofi'ering of 
the body of Christ once, by which will we have been made 
HOLY, as already explained, equivalent in sense to have 
been expiated, or have been atoned for. By the ofi'ering 
of his body once for all, he became the procuring cause 
of our regeneration, and of our external holiness, as to the 
keeping of the moral law, as the fruit of the new birth. 
But the verb in our text, as indicating an act in itself, 
conveys no such idea as that of purifying the heart mor- 
ally. Dr. Clarke is surely correct when he says, on 
chap, ii, 11, that exjnate "is the sense in which this word 
is used generally through this Epistle." We, therefore, 
conclude that it retains its Hebrew use exactly. 

25. Heb. X, 14 : " For by one ofi'ering he hath per- 
fected forever them that are sanctified." On the phrase, 
for by one offering, Dr. Clarke says, " His death upon the 
cross. He hath perfected forever — He has procured remis- 
sion of sins and holiness ; for it is well observed here, 
and in several parts of this Epistle, that reAetow, to make 
perfect, is the same as aipiaiv aiidpziajv rtoisiv, to procure re- 
mission of sins. Them that are sanctified — Tuuq d/iaXo/j.e- 
vooq, them that have received the sprinkling of the blood 
of this ofi'ering. These, therefore, receiving redemption 
through that blood, have no need of any other ofi'ering, 
as this is a complete atonement, purification, and title to 
eternal glory." Professor Stuart translates, " He has 
forever perfected those for whom expiation is made." 
He further says, " The meaning is, he has forever re- 
moved the penalty due to sin, and procured for those who 
were exposed to it that peace of conscience which the 
law could never give." The word may be translated here, 



aeg. xyii.] perfection and sanctificatiox. 



349 



Them that are made holy. The drift of the apostle's 
discourse, beginning at the first of the chapter and read- 
ing as far as our text, will suffice to convince any reason- 
able person, without note or comment, that the apostle is 
speaking constantly of the reality of atonement in the 
blood of Christ compared with that of the beasts slain in 
sacrifice, which was only typical. This is still the sec- 
ondary sense of the word, as in the former passages of 
this Epistle. We still find it uniform ; Hebrew in idea 
and use, and in the most express manner referring to 
Hebrew rites and customs. 

26. Heb. X, 29: " Who hath trodden under foot the 
Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, 
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." The 
apostle uses the word "sanctified," in this text, in the 
same sense as he did in those already considered in this 
Epistle. Dr. Adam Clarke may again help us to fix the 
meaning of our word, to whom there can be no objection, 
he being an advocate of entire sanctification, as such. 
He says, " The blood of the covenant means here the 
sacrificial death of Christ, by which the new covenant 
between God and man was ratified, sealed, and confirmed. 
And counting this unholy, or common, y.oiv6v^ intimates 
that they expected nothing from it in a sacrificial or 
ATONING way. How near to those persons, and how near 
to their destruction, do those come in the present day, lolio 
reject the atoning blood, and say ' that they expect no 
more benefit from the blood of Christ than they do from 
that of a cow or a sheep?' Is not this precisely the 

CRIME OF which THE APOSTLE SPEAKS HERE, and tO which 

he tells us God would show no mercy ?" Observe the 
words of the Doctor which we have put in capital let- 
ters. Do they not show that he understood the apostle 
to be still in the same argument, and connected with 
the same context, to be speaking of making an atone- 
ment^ an expiation^ when he uses the wwd "sanctified" 



350 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



here, and not that he used it in the sense of a purified 
soul, or to indicate the completed act of taking away sin 
from the heart? 

Observe further, the quotation the Doctor makes, no 
doubt, from some Socinian author, who hold, as a part of 
their creed, that Jesus Christ was a mere man," and 
hence, as he quotes, they expect no more benefit from 
his blood than from the blood of a beast. This shows, 
at once, that Dr. Clarke is still treating the word in the 
sense of to expiate, to atone, as he says, in his note on chap- 
ter ii, 11, that such " is the sense in which this word is 
used generally through this Epistle.''^ It may be further 
argued, that if the word sanctified, as here used, means 
a perfect state of purity in the human soul, then there is 
no context, no scope, to support such an opinion, nor can 
any theologian fairly and exegetically account for the 
26th verse, "If we sin willfully after we have received 
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sac- 
rifice for sins." Now, if this knowledge of the truth con- 
sists in the forgiveness of sin, as a complete work of grace 
in the heart, the same as is understood by " entire sanctifi- 
cation," then, to " sin willfully," after such a blessing, on 
this hypothesis, we Avould be undone forever, according to 
this text, there would then be no other hope or chance, "no 
more sacrifice for sins ;" which would be contrary to facts 
both of every-day occurrence, if the experience of some on 
entire sanctification be taken, and contrary to Scripture ; 
for David prayed for restoration to the Divine favor, after 
committing adultery. See Psa. li. But if we regard this 
willful sin in the sense of the denial of the atonement, 
and the counting the "blood of the covenant w^herewith 
he was sanctified an unholy thing," in the sense of being 
the blood w^herewith he was made holy, that is, expiated, 
a xor^ow, Jcoinon, common thing — mere human blood, then it 
is easy to see how there can be no more sacrifice for sins. 

On this 26th verse Dr. Clarke says it means, " one ivho 



Arc. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



351 



lias utterly rejected Jesus Christ and his atoning blood ; and 
renounced the ivhole Gospel system. It has nothiyig to do 
with backsliding in the common use of the term. A man 
may be overtaken in a fault, or he may deliberately go 
into sin; and yet neither renounce the Gospel, nor deny 
the Lord that bought him. His case is dreary and dan- 
gerous, but it is not hopeless; no case is hopeless but that 
of the deliberate apostate, who rejects the whole Gospel 
system, after having been saved by grace, or convinced 
of the truth of the Gospel. To him there remaineth no 
more sacrifice for sin ; for there was but one Jesus ; and 
this he has utterly rejected." The passage can have no 
other meaning than this. And the blood with which he 
was sanctified, means the blood with which he was made 
HOLY, with which an atonement was made for him. Mr. 
Wesley, on the expression, by ivhich he hath been sanc- 
tified, says, " Therefore Christ died for him also, and he 
was, at least, justified once." Remember that the apos- 
tle writes this Epistle to converted Hebrews, and ho 
must convey to them the sense of the Christian relig- 
ion by using Hebrew terms. Hence, he employs the 
words priest, altar, sacrifice, blood, bulls, goats, heifer, asses, 
hyssop, sprinkle, unclean, holy, covenant, sanctuary, holy 
of holies, vail, atonement, sanctify, and many others, in 
their rigid Hebrew sense. Professor Stuart, with his 
usual accuracy, translates our text, " And regard the 
blood of the covenant by which expiation has been made, 
as unclean." His comment is accordingly. Our word, 
then, we find still regular — strictly Hebrew, and used like 
the Hebrew, to indicate a ceremonial act. 

27. Heb. xiii, 12 : " Wherefore Jesus also, that he might 
sanctify the people, suffered without the gate." 

So far as it respects the sense of our word in this text 
itself, it is not much worth while to waste ink in trying 
to make it plainer than the text itself and its connection 
do; for the sake of its general bearing on the subject. 



352 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



however, will indulge a few words. The contrast in 
the preceding verse shows that the apostle still presents 
the points of analogy between the Levitical atonement 
and the one made by Christ. He says, ^Tor the bodies 
of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary 
by the high-priest, for sin, are burned without the camp.'' 
Even so Jesus, our High-Priest, enters the upper sanctu- 
ary, the antitype of the earthly, with the merits of his 
own blood, there to appear in the presence of God for us. 
Before this his body, like as the bodies of beasts were 
burned without the camp, " suffered without the gate," that 
he might dycdffrj, (hagiase,) make holy, in the primary sense 
before shown, that is, in the secondary sense, expiate, 
atone for, or make an atonement for the people with his 
OWN blood," in contradiction to the typical, which was 
done with the blood of beasts. On the word sanctify/,- Mr. 
Benson says, "Might make an atonement for and conse- 
crate to God." Dr. Adam Clarke is so rich on this text, 
that we have a sufficient apology for again quoting him. 
Hear him : " That he might consecrate them to God, and 
make an atonement for their sins, he suffered without the 
gate, at Jerusalem ; as the sin-offering was consumed 
ivithout the camp, when the Tabernacle abode in the wil- 
derness. Perhaps all this was typical of the Jewish sac- 
rifices, and the termination of the w^hole Levitical system 
of worship. He left the city, denounced its final destruc- 
tion, and abandoned it to its fate ; and suffered without 
the gate to bring the Gentiles to God." 

On the word sanctify, Mr. "Wesley says, "Beconcile 
and consecrate to God." Professor Stuart translates our 
text, "In order that he might make expiation for the 
people." He comments accordingly. This is the seventh 
time that we have found o-yidZw, hagiazo, in the book of 
Hebrews. We believe in every instance we have quoted 
Dr. Clarke and Professor Stuart who agree, the former, 
at least, an entire sanctificationist. Besides, sometimes 



Arg. xvil] perfection and sanctification. 



353 



Mr. Wesley, Mr. Benson, and Dr. Thomas Coke, who 
seem also to agree that the word is equal to our uniform 
meaning — to make holy, they generally giving it to expi- 
ate, while we all mean the same. 

Furthermore, in laying aside the Epistle to the He- 
brews, as to the word dyid^w, hagiazo, we invite the atten- 
tion of inward sanctificationists to an important fact, which 
they would do well to account for ; namely, the frequent use 
of dyid^u), hagiazo, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, compared 
with any other book of the New Testament. How shall 
we account for this? There are thirteen books of the New 
Testament, in which the word is not found at all. There 
are two things involved in the impending question, which 
will actually demonstrate the ground that we have taken, 
wherein we regard this as a Hebrew term in every respect. 
1. The Epistle to the Hebrews was written to Hebrew peo- 
ple, who had embraced the Christian religion, and hence 
the word occurs more frequently, by far, than in those 
Epistles written to Churches made up of Gentile con- 
verts; as for example, the Epistle to the Ephesians. For 
writing to a people understanding the term, he used it as 
one familiar to their vocabulary, as persons speaking the 
ecclesiastical dialect; whereas to heathens unacquainted 
with the Hebrew force of the word he scarcely used it, it 
most likely not being adapted to his purpose, on account 
of their ignorance of it. 2. The Epistle to the Hebrews 
is acknowledged to be the ablest exposition of the Levit- 
ical code that we have. It is, in fact, regarded by the 
most learned as the key which unlocks the difficulties of 
the ceremonial worship of the Hebrew people. Their 
rehgion, for the most part, consisted in types and shad- 
ows, which are fully explained in this Epistle. But the 
very nature of the apostle's subject in hand, as well as 
the people to whom he wrote, being Hebrews, led him to 
use the word sanctify as often as he did. His theme is 

to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ as the world's Great High- 

30 



854 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Priest who made an atonement for them, who made them 
holy by the offering up of himself once for all. Typical 
atonements being common with the Jews, the apostle was 
just at home in using the w^ord as we have found it in 
this Epistle. These two things, then, namely, that he 
ivrote to Hebrews, and the subject that he treated of, de- 
manded the frequent use of the term. They show that 
it is essentially Hebrew, and, if so, we must take it in 
the sense of that language, which will not support those 
who hold to entire sanctity, so held, either according to 
Gesenius's Lexicon, or any clear proof-passage of Scrip- 
ture. Observe, reader, that entire sanctification, so called, 
w^as never preached to the Hebrews by the use of this 
word. It occurs seven times in the Epistle, and is not 
designed to express such an act. Entire sanctificationists 
themselves have explained it away ! 

28. Rom. XV, 16 : " That I should be the minister of 
Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel 
of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be 
acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." This 
text, as an honest writer, we are compelled to say, is now 
before us for an exposition, with the authority of great 
and learned men against us, as we understand them. 
Were it not that they were mortal, w^e should be con- 
sumed. We will most respectfully give them a hearing, 
and then bring them to the test of criticism. In this, 
dear reader, your most sanguine prejudices are not at all 
solicited, so as to render us ho7'S de combat, but being as 
solemnly obligated to bring forth out of the divine treas- 
ure "things new and old" as they, we would touch the 
mainspring of your tenderest sympathies, that you may, 
at least, hear us of your clemency a little. Please follow 
us into the arena of argument, as an impartial spectator, 
and hear both sides of the question. 

Dr. Robinson, supposed to be our best of Greek-English 
lexicographers of the New Testament, quotes, translates, 



Aro. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



355 



and paraphrases the word in our text thus : rjYiaffixivy) h 
-Kvsbtxari dyiu), being purified by the Holy Spirit, that is, by 
the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit on the hearts 
of the Gentiles. 1 Cor. vi, 11 ; Eph. v, 26 ; 1 Thess. v, 
28; 1 Tim. iv, 5; Heb. ii, 11; x, 10, 14, 29; xiii, 12; 
Rev. xxii, 11." Here this learned man defines the Avord 
to signify the act of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of the 
Gentiles, and in proof he gives ten instances of the use 
of the term where we have already considered it, most of 
which our ablest commentators, who, themselves, adhere 
to what is called entire sanctification, have clearly defined 
to mean an act of expiation done for the Gentiles, and 
not in them, thousands of years before the most of them 
should have been born. And others of these passages 
they have interpreted in some ceremonial way, so as en- 
tirely to preclude the idea advanced by our learned lexi- 
cographer. Whoever, therefore, adopts Dr. Robinson, as 
his guide, on this passage, should be consistent with him- 
self, and adopt him, also, on the whole of the seven pas- 
sages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where both Dr. Adam 
Clarke and Professor Stuart interpret the word in the 
sense of to make expiation for the Gentiles, instead of to 
perform a Avork of purifying on their " hearts." This 
he should do, because Dr. Robinson has given all these 
passages as proof of his declaration, equally with our 
text, as proof. The Doctor's statement, then, proves too 
much, and he who receives him on our text must not 
only receive him on the other texts, but he also stands 
opposed to Dr. Clarke, Professor Stuart, Mr. Benson, Mr. 
Wesley, and Dr. Thomas Coke, on, perhaps, the majority 
of them. This perfectly invalidates the authority of this 
lexicographer, against us, on the word in this place; for 
our text he quotes, as the first proof of his definitions, 
where he says that it means, "Tropically, in a moral 
sense, to purify, to sanctify then he adds, after it, the 
other ten passages given, to be taken, of course, in the 



356 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



same sense, which signification, we think, sound criticism 
will not give to one of them. Now, if entire sanctifica- 
tionists themselves have defined the word entirely differ- 
ent from him, in so many places, we think they will not 
object to us taking their example. Our better judgment, 
therefore, teaches us that we can not, at all, depend on 
him for accuracy as to the true meaning of the verb in 
our text. Having fairly presented him, we deem it law- 
ful to lay him aside, and seek the proper sense of the 
term from some other source. Dr. Adam Clarke explains 
our text thus : 

''Ministering the Gospel of God, '[epoopyowra, acting as 
a priest. Here is a plain allusion, says Dr. Whitby, to 
the Jewish sacrifices offered by the priest, and sanctified, 
or made acceptable by the lihamen offered with them. 
For, he compares himself, in preaching the Gospel, to tJie 
performing Ms sacred functions, preparing his sacrifice to 
be offered. The Gentiles converted by him, and dedicated 
to the service of God, are his sacrifices and oblation. The 
Holy Spirit is the lihamen poured upon this sacrifice, by 
which it is sanctified, and rendered acceptable to God. 
The words of Isaiah Ixvi, 20, And they shall bring all 
your brethren for an offering unto the Lord, out of all 
NATIONS, might have suggested the above idea to the mind 
of the apostle." 

Mr. Benson, we may say, is to the same effect. What 
these eminent commentators say on our text, is now be- 
fore the reader, who may put his own construction upon 
them : permit us to say, that we understand them plainly 
to teach certain points which we may exhibit in our exe- 
gesis of this passage. We prefer to give our own trans- 
lation of the original, since we think it affords some light, 

and to work accordingly. E\<; t6 ehai /j.s Xeirypydv ' Irjffod 
Xpiffoo ££C Ta eOvTj lepoupyouvra to £day)'iXiov too 0eou, iva yivr^rat 
i] Tzpoacpopa rmv ldv(bv sunpoffdexTon;, rjytaaij.hy) Hveofiart aytu). 

That I should be a minister of Jesus Christ unto the Gen- 



Aro. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



357 



tiles, acting as a priest as to the Gospel of God, that the 
Gentiles as an offering mag become acceptable, having been 
PRONOUNCED HOLY — that is, having been regarded as cere- 
monially clean — by the Holy Spirit. 

We will here offer a few words to justify, in part, this 
translation. (1.) It is according to the usus loquendi of 
the verb a-ytd^w^ hagiazo. It compares exactly with Lev. 
xxi, 8 : DDii'^pD nin; I (am) Jehovah, the One pro- 
nouncing you HOLY. So Lev. xx, 8, et alibi. Here 
the word is in the Pi' hel species, and is analogous to our 
text in Romans, in two respects : {a) In the signification 
of the word ; it means, as viewed from the Hebrew, " to 
hold sacred, to regard and treat as holy — "that is, ceremo- 
nially clean — and '^to pronounce holy,^^ or, ceremonially 
clean. The meaning is, that the people — the Jewish na- 
tion — were held, regarded, treated, and pronounced as 
nationally clean, and fit to be the distinct people of God, 
as opposed to such as were heathens, regarded as unclean, 
and debarred from the Church rites and privileges of his 
people, (b) The other respect wherein a resemblance is 
found is, that the Hebrew word in this place expresses a 
mental and direct act of God upon the Jews, whom he 
then held as fit to be his people, the same as he now 
holds, in his mind, the Gentiles, as having equal rights, 
ceremonial distinctions having been abolished. (2.) 'H -poa- 
<popd (the offering) and rwv iO^^ibv (the Gentiles) we put in 
apposition. Dr. Winer says, " Sometimes the word, which 
expresses the apposition, is not added to its noun in the 
same case, but in the genitive : e. g., 2 Cor. v, 5 ; xbv ap- 
^a^wva TOO r.^ebimroq, the spirit as a pledge.^^^^ So, Rom. 
iv, 11, (TTjfxsiov Ua/Ss 7zepiro/j.rjq^ he received the sign of circum- 
cision, that is, which consisted in the circumcision. Acts 
iv, 22, TO ffTjiisiov TouTo TT^q Iddscoq, this miracle of the heal- 
ing, that is, consisting in the healing. Many examples 
could be given. So is the same common to the Hebrew. 

* Idioms of the Language of the New Testament, § 48, 2. 



358 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



"Not unfrequentlj the genitive relation supplies the place 
of apposition, as "inj, fluvius Euphratisy^ That is, 
the river of Euphrates, for the river Euphrates. So in 
Latin, urhs Bomce, the city of Rome, where they mean 
the city Rome. We say, " the city of Boston In all 
these examples, common to languages in general, that 
which is signified by the first noun mentioned, consists in 
the second. So in our text, the offering consists in the 
Gentiles themselves. Hence, Dr. Clarke properly says, 
" The Gentiles . . . are his (St. Paul's) sacrifices 
and oblation." (3.) Our verb rjiaffiii'^ri^ hegiasmene, being 
in the perfect tense, passive voice, w^e translate accord- 
ingly, having been pronounced holy. Now, the views 
given by commentators, as we understand them, and also 
by our lexicographer quoted, seem to indicate two objec- 
tionable ideas in particular, (ct) That what is expressed 
by the impending word, was an action on the hearts of 
the Gentiles, thereby making them internally and morally 
pure, (h) That, as to time, this w^as done, as a prepara- 
tion of the Gentiles, as a sacrifice, to render them accept- 
able to God, before the apostle ofi"ers them in his priestly 
office as he represents himself. These two views, in com- 
mon, seem to be attended by the several following and 
apparently-fatal objections: 

(1.) The word dyid^w, hagiazo, does not, as yet found, 
signify to cleanse morally, that is, to remove sin from the 
soul. It just means to make holy, ceremonially, which 
sense is then to be modified and explained so as to show 
what the meaning in the secondary sense is; so that it 
may thus be found sometimes to mean a ceremonial 
cleansing or purifying and sometimes to expiate or atone. 
In the corresponding Hebrew, the word i^ip, (kadhash,) 
to sanctify, is found, we believe, a little more than one 
hundred times, and in the New Testament it is found, in 
texts already mentioned, twenty-seven times. The Hebrew, 

* Rodiger's Gesenius's Heb. Grammar, § 114, 3. 



Akg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



359 



as defined by Gesenius, on a fair examination, does not 
sanction tlie meaning of the word so as to accommodate 
the views of our commentators. Nor do the passages in 
the Hebrew Bible where it occurs, when considered in 
the light of their own contexts. Neither do the twenty- 
seven passages already examined in the Greek Testament. 
We have, by the use of the Hebrew-English Lexicon, vir- 
tually discussed the word — say in round numbers — one 
hundred and thirty times already, and have only this and 
one place more to consider it. Logically speaking, there- 
fore, when thrown into the " calculation of chances," is 
not the likelihood of its signification, to cleanse morally, 
very uneertainf Says Mr. Hedge, "If sixty crowns be 
promised a person on condition of his throwing a partic- 
ular face on a die, his expectation before trial is worth 
ten crowns, since he has one chance in six, or one-sixth 
of a certainty of gaining the whole sum."* Therefore, 
from a parity of reasoning, granting the accuracy of our 
former investigations, our authors may be said to stand 
about one chance in one hundred and thirty of being cor- 
rect, or one one-hundred-and-thirtieth of a certainty of 
accuracy. Now, if any man is remarkably anxious for 
the doctrine he espouses, if he wish to found it on one 
chance in one hundred and thirty, we, of course, have no 
objection to his piety, and would rather commend him for 
his zeal than for his knowledge and judgment. 

(2.) Our context is very unfavorable to the opinion held 
by those already quoted. The apostle, immediately pre- 
ceding our text, is speaking of the mercy of God in call- 
ing the Gentiles. He is not speaking of any inward work 
of grace at all. Observe, [a) We are now over in the 
fifteenth chapter of the Epistle. Li the former chapters 
the apostle argued and defended the doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith and the iniuard and direct witness of the 
Holy Spirit, as none but an inspired workman could. 

* Logic, Article 134. 



360 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



(h) After a long and able discussion concerning national 
election, illustrating liis argument by the case of Pharaoh, 
etc., he begins to speak of the calling of the Gentiles. 
As prehminary to this, he gives special advice to the 
Gentile Christian converts in the Church at Rome. He 
begins our chapter in an address to them, calHng them 
the " strong " in contradistinction to the converted Jews, 
who were in a degree whimsical in respect to their relig- 
ious opinions, saying, " We, then, that are strong ought 
to bear the infirmities of the weak," that we should do so 
because Christ did the same. He then speaks of Christ 
bearing our " reproaches," then of the things written of 
old for the "comfort" of us Gentiles. He makes men- 
tion of Jesus Christ as a " minister of the circumcision " 
for the sake of the truth of God, who through him had 
made promises to the Gentiles : " To confirm the promises 
made unto the fathers ;" " That the Gentiles should glorify 
God for his mercy," in calling them to be partakers in 
praising him, which praise was due unto him for redeem- 
ing them, as he says — verse 8 — for bearing their " re- 
proaches." Now he quotes four passages from the Old 
Testament — verses 9-12 — to prove that God had promised 
to CALL the Gentiles. This was very necessary. Those 
to whom he wrote were both Jews and Gentiles. As to 
the latter, he knew that it was of great importance to 
explain to them that they had sure and clear promises 
of redemption in Christ. As to the former, he was aware 
that it was of equal moment that they should be con- 
vinced, by the wTitings of their own prophets, of the 
purpose of God in calling those who had not been his 
people. Instead of speaking of inward grace, in our 
text, or in any part of its context directly, which he had 
fully done in the preceding chapters, the drift of the 
Epistle, which he now holds in view, is to show that the 
heathens are really the subjects of the mercy of God 
through the act of redemption, that it had been God's 



Aeq. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 361 



purpose, as mentioned by the prophets, to bring them in 
to be equal partakers with the Jews. This being done, he 
excused himself for writing to them as he had done, be- 
cause God had manifested great grace to him in making 
him a minister to the Gentiles. Just at this point he 
writes our text, wherein he makes this grace, in part at 
least, to consist in himself acting as a priest to the Gen- 
tiles, whom the Jews had always regarded as debarred 
from the privileges of God's people. This is somewhat 
the substance, also, of what is said by Dr. Clarke and 
Mr. Benson on this context. Now, is there any thing 
said about an inward work of grace here, so far as it re- 
lates to the theme of the apostle ? Is not the whole 
subject in his mind as clearly revealed as is possible to 
conceive that he is speaking of God as having made them 
HOLY — that is, ceremonially so — so that they would have 
just as free access to him as the Jews had, all distinctions 
having been abolished and nailed to the cross? Thus 
much we may say as hinting at the context, a thing that 
our commentators do not observe, so as to make their exe- 
gesis of the text and a fair consideration of the context 
harmonize, when they make the doctrine of the former an 
inivard work. As to this they are destitute of a context, 
and contradicted by the scope. Whatever interpretation, 
therefore, may be given to the passage, it must accord 
with the tenor of the apostle's reasoning. 

(3.) Their views are a total neglect of the grammatical 
principle found in the text. Our verb is in the perfect 
tense, as already mentioned, and must be quoted or read 
accordingly, unless we are content to lose one of the two 
ideas found in the perfect form of Greek verbs, which so 
often occurs. It has been before spoken of, and it will 
be found in our conclusion'-^ fully stated and well authen- 

* See Conclusion on the perpetuity of regeneration, I. 6, f., where we have 
quoted Anthon's New Greek Granamar, p. 480, Crosby's Greek Grammar, 
§ 579, and Dr. Winer's Idioms of the Language of the New Testament, 
g 41, 4, giving many illustrations of the Greek verb in the perfect tense. 

81 



362 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTIOJf. 



[Part II. 



ticated, that there are two principles involved in a Greek 
verb in the perfect tense. First. It is used to indicate a 
complete act, which took place in the past, just the same 
as our Enghsh perfect. Second. It is designed, at the 
same time, to indicate that the effect or results of that act 
are still in being %hen the writer is writing. Let us 
take, here, one example : Mw^Tj^, siq 6V u/jLeit; TjX-ntxare, 
Moses, in whom ye have trusted, and still continue to 
TRUST, as if in Latin, in quo repositam liahitis spem ves- 
tram. John v, 45.* This accounts for scores of instances 
in the New Testament, where our translators, doing the 
best they could on account of two ideas in the Greek 
where the English has only one, have translated the 
Greek perfect tense by the English present, conceiving the 
present idea, that is, the existence of the effect of the 
action of the verb, as more prominent and important than 
the past idea. This is the way in which they translated 
our text, which must be so interpreted as to admit a clear 
solution to both the ideas in the word. We do not at 
all say that the verb should not be translated as they 
have done — such would be presumption — we only mean 
that there must be such an exegesis given of the passage 
as shall be in accordance with the fact that the verb, in 
the original, is in the perfect tense. This being so, a 
further expression of our text may stand thus. That the 
Gentiles as an offering may become acceptable, having 
BEEN PRONOUNCED HOLY — or ceremonially clean as a na- 
tion — by the Holy Spirit, and remaining holy still. Here 
it may be seen that our authorized translation loses the 
perfected idea of the word entirely, and gives the present 
only. 

(4.) The position of our commentators is opposed log- 
ically and theologically to certain considerations involved 

* See Conclusion on the jietyeiuity of regeneration, I. 6, f., where we have 
quoted Anthon's New Greek Grammar, p. 480, Crosby's Greek Grammar, 
g 679, and Dr. Winer's Idioms of the Language of the New Testament, 
§ 41, 4, giving many illustrations of the Greek verb in the perfect tense. 



Arc. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



363 



in our text. These are three. First, that St. Paul 
preaches the Gospel to the Gentiles expressed in the 
words, Acting the priest as to the Gospel of God. Sec- 
ond, that it has been made possible for the Gentiles to 
be ministered unto, and still remains possible, set forth in 
the words, Having been pronounced holy and remaining 
holy still. Third, the final end contemplated by the apos- 
tle's ministry, declared in the words, Tliat the Gentiles as 
an offering may become acceptable. Now, in what the ac- 
cejytability of the Gentiles consists, must be determined 
before we further proceed. It is manifestly in this, that 
they, after having heard the Gospel, should become the 
servants of God, and walk in his holy commandments. 
This seems plain, since, (a) The acceptability is, accord- 
ing to the construction of the text, the final object or end 
of St. Paul's ministry, (b) The word so-pdfrdsxTog, accept- 
able^ Greenfield defines, also, pleasing ;^ Groves, ^^agree- 
able;'' Dr. Robinson, tvell-received,'' approved.'' These 
definitions will give us a more general idea of the term, 
and a moment's reflection will assure us that to no man 
can any of these adjectives be applied, in the Christian 
sense, except to him who devotes himself to Gocl. (c) St. 
Peter uses the word when he addresses the Church, as 
those who had already become the true servants of God, 
as the final result or end of apostolic preaching, saying, 
"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, 
an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, accept- 
able to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. ii, 5. {d) In 
verse 9 of the same chapter, he further says, "Ye are a 
chosen generation . . . that ye should shew forth the 
PRAISES of him who hath called you out of darkness into 
his marvelous light; which in time past were NOT A peo- 
ple, but are NOW the people of God." Here he speaks 
of the Gentiles praising God, as the people who show by 
their Christianity the final result of the Gospel preached 
to them. And it just agrees with the context to our text, 



364 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



where St. Paul, in speaking of the call of the Gentiles, 
says, "Praise the Lord all ye Gentiles." This fixes the 
sense in which we are to take the word acceptable. It 
means those approved by the Almighty on account of 
their personal piety. 

Now, the views of our commentators, wherein they 
make internal sanctity a prerequisite to the acceptability 
of this text, are, 

First. Contrary to the apostle's statements logically, as 
to the regular order of things in respect to time. Dr. 
Clarke says, " The Gentiles converted by him, and dedi- 
cated to the service of God, are his sacrifice and obla- 
tion." Again he says, " The Holy Ghost is the lihamen 
poured upon this sacrifice, BY which it is sanctified and 
rendered acceptable to God." Mr. Benson, on the 
phrase, heijig sanctified hy the Holy Ghost, says, " Plenti- 
fully COMMUNICATED to them, not only in a rich variety 
OF GIFTS, but in his regenerating, purifying, and com- 
forting influences ; making them wise and good, holy 
toward God, and useful to their fellow-creatures." Ac- 
cording to the arrangement laid down, as deducible from 
our text, we see that these good men have taken the 
sanctification mentioned in the wrong sense. For while 
we hold that it means the national sanctification, whereby 
God removed the arbitrary distinction of uneleanness from 
the Gentiles, which the Holy Ghost sanctioned and deemed 
to have been done, thereby making this work the means 
whereby the apostle has the mere j^'i^Mege of preaching 
to them, in order that they may receive internal and 
personal purity through the faith of the Gospel, as the 
final end of preaching, they have perverted the sense 
of the means so as to make it the same in sense with 
what the apostle regards as the final end. They are, 
therefore, obviously incorrect as viewed in the logical 
order of things. Logical means and ends must never be 
blended. 



Arc. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



365 



Their inaccuracy, in this respect, may appear more 
fully from the following considerations : (a) Their exege- 
sis does not at all account for the participial adjunct, 
having been made Jioly, regarded merely as to the use of 
language ; for when a writer throws in a qualifying ad- 
junct, he of course deems it essential to the proper sense 
to be given to his sentence. But the apostle says he is 
a priest of the Gospel for the final end of saving the 
Gentiles, adjunctively stating that something had been 
done for them before that time, so as to make it possible 
to preach to them, and that this timely something still 
remains done for them. Now, granting that the sanctity 
means personal purity, ''in a rich variety of gifts," there 
can, in the very nature of language, be no use for the 
adjunct, since personal purity is not essential to persons 
being the hearers of the Gospel, nor does moral impurity 
exclude men from being the subjects of Gospel ministra- 
tions, (b) Their comments present an erroneous view of 
the ministerial office in which the apostle rejoiced ; for the 
minister does not go unto the Gentiles to preach as to 
persons individually and imvardhj pure. St. Paul's mis- 
sion to the Gentiles was " to open their eyes, and to turn 
them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan 
unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and 
an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith 
that is in me." Acts xxvi, 18. It is remarkable what 
an analogy there is between our own exegesis of the pres- 
ent text in Romans, and the doctrine of this passage in 
the Acts. This latter is the tenth passage that we have 
examined containing dyidXw^ hagiazo ; the reader would do 
well to compare our views on both, and especially observe 
their resemblance as to the final end proposed in the min- 
istry of the Gospel to the Gentiles, {c) Their interpreta- 
tion repudiates the* final object of the apostle's ministry. 
For if the adjunct, having been pronounced holy, etc., re- 
fers to the cleansing of the soul, as Dr. x'^.dam Clarke 



866 



REVIEW OE WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Pabt II. 



says of it, that it ''sanctified" and rendered them 
"acceptable to Grod," since the perfect form of the verb 
is used, implying that the results and effects of its action 
remain with them still, as already shown, the Gentiles, as 
an entire family, had the final object of preaching in their 
possession before St. Paul preached to them at all; that 
is, they had the end before they had the means; for, 
surely, if a soul is sanctified by the Holy Ghost, as Mi. 
Benson says, "plentifully communicated,'' he is as accept- 
able with God as he can be. '\niere, then, is the final 
end to be obtained which is anticipated in the apostle's 
mind, not yet reached, and expressed by the words ha 
yi^r^zat . . . su-poddey-oc, that may hecome 
acceptable ? 

Second. Our text presents theological difficulties when 
interpreted as our learned men have done. Before pre- 
senting the particulars coming under this head, we remark 
that when the- apostle speaks of being a minister to the 
Gentiles, and officiating as a priest respecting the Gospel, 
he is to be understood as using the word " Gentiles " in a 
general sense to indicate the whole Gentile world, and not 
as confining his expression to any particular part of them. 
His words are applicable, also, to every true Christian 
minister who is " called as was Aaron," respecting his 
mission to the heathen world. " Preach the Gospel to 
every creature," is the Divine command. 

(a) Their exposition seems to tend to Universalism, If 
the whole Gentile family, before ever hearing the Gospel, 
have received, as Mr. Benson says, " the regenerating ^ 
2?u7'ifying, and eomfoHing influences'^ of the Holy Ghost, 
"making them wise and good, holy toward God, and use- 
ful to then- fellow- creatures," what more is needed to save 
them all? Would not this doctrine save every body? 
Do we not see from this that the word could have had no 
reference to personal or internal purity? 

(6) What seems to be, perhaps, the most absurd feature 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



367 



of all is, that their notion represents the Gentiles as mor- 
ally pure and fitted for heaven before having heard the 
Gospel preached! The verb r,Yia(7iJ.hri actually implies 
that at some time, anterior to the apostle's ministry and 
to his writing, the Gentiles had been sanctified — let this 
mean what it may — and that they are yet in that same 
condition. Is it true that the Gentiles are morally pure 
in heart before they hear the Gospel ? We really thought 
that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word 
of God." 

(5.) Their interpretation does not follow the analogy 
in the use of the wwd riyiaaixhri^ hegiasmene. We have 
seen that the perfect passive participle in the Greek 
language, as in the English, means the same as the 
kindred adjective. This w^ord we have shown means the 
very same, when used in this form, as its kindred adjec- 
tive, aywq, (hagios,) holy. But the latter we find has no 
stronger meaning in the New Testament and Septuagint, 
than that of designating one having a right or privilege 
to Church relation. We have sufficiently argued this, and 
have quoted Dr. Hibbard's able exposition of it, as favor- 
able to us, besides. Therefore, the signification of the 
word thus found, does not indicate that the Gentiles were 
regenerated by the Holy Ghost, even were we to lay aside 
all the foregoing arguments advanced on this text. It 
would merely signify that they had been pronounced 
HOLY, or fitted by the coming in of the Christian dispen- 
sation, as our context teaches, to receive the blessings of 
the Gospel equally with the Jews. Thus the word, from 
a general and constant use, previously established, as 
equal to dywq^ hagios^ sustains us and opposes them, un- 
less those who hold to their views can show that aywq^ 
hagios^ is used to indicate, essentially, a heart perfectly 
cleansed by the Holy Ghost. 

(6.) Their exegesis of the phrase rjyiaaixiyrj, hegiasmene^ 
having been pronounced holy, does not properly explain 



368 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Pakt II. 



wherein accgj:>/a6z7% in an offering consists. They seem to 
have strained the beautiful figure of the apostle wherein 
he represents the Gentiles as an offering. For, Dr. 
Clarke, adopting Dr. Whitby, by what seems to be a 
freak of fancy, compares the Holy Grhost to lihamen 
poured upon the ancient sacrifices. This is surely inap- 
posite and far-fetched — perhaps, what some would call mak- 
ing a figure go on all fours. Eor it loses the idea of the 
sacrifice being the Geiitiles, as human beings, whom God 
had formerly held to be unclean, as opposed to the Jews, 
who were clean, and apparently conceives of them as if 
consisting in some kind of sacrifice inferior to man. The 
impending question is for us to determine how" men were 
made lioly, that is, ceremonially clean, so as to approach 
God in worship, and not how men prepared other sacri- 
fices. We must adhere to the usus loquendi of the word 
as applied to man. The corresponding sacrifices under 
the Levitical priesthood were Jews — human beings, and 
not oxen or goats. In this we find that God sanctified, or 
treated as holy, that is, as nationally or ceremonially clean, 
the whole Hebrew nation, and if one of them, by the vio- 
lation of the Divine law, became ceremonially unclean, 
God required him to sanctify himself, or make himself cer- 
emonially holy again, by the benefits of the proper cere- 
monies for such a particular case. Now, while the Jews 
were a holt — Hebrew li'np, Greek dywt — ^nation, and had 
the peculiar rites of religion among themselves, and en- 
joyed all the knowledge and favors of the true God, as a 
distinct people, it was " an unlaivfid thing for a man that 
is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another na- 
tion.'' Acts X, 28. The Gentiles were called "the un- 
circumcision." " At that time they were without Christ, 
being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
strangers from the covenants of promise," because God, 
during all this time, regarded and treated them as unclean, 
and as yet had made no provision for them whereby they 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



369 



should be ceremonially clean as the Jews had been. Our 
learned commentators seem to have accidentally over- 
looked this truth in our text, which they so ably treat 
elsewhere in many places. For God, in the fullness of 
time, broke down the middle wall, and thus sanctified the 
Gentile world, and made it possible for them to draw nigh 
unto him and become his worshipers. " Now, in Christ 
Jesus, ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by 
the blood of Christ." Eph. ii, 13. The act seems to 
have been Christ's. He suffered without the gate to 
SANCTIFY — or MAKE HOLY — the people, and the Holy 
Ghost acquiesced in it. Therefore, to give the word in 
our text the coloring of analogy to the pouring out of 
libamen, and not to God's method of making, regarding, 
or treating men formally holy, as in his ancient Church, 
is surely very unfit in this passage, and involves the argu- 
ment in inextricable difficulties. 

(7.) Having presented the several arguments now be- 
fore the reader, as to the sense of our text, a few addi- 
tional considerations may properly be offered in demon- 
stration of the fact that our verb is to be regarded in 
every respect as a Hebrew word. 

(a) Consislency demands this. We have seen that Dr. 
Adam Clarke and others regard the apostle as using a 
figure borrowed from Hebrew priests, officiating at their 
altar, when he speaks of himself acting the priest as to the 
Gospel. If, therefore, the figure itself is Hebrew, we 
must, for the sake of consistency, take the terms pertain- 
ing to that Hebrew mode of worship in the same sense. 
One Avord in the passage is just as much to be understood 
in the Levitical signification as another. The verb rjyiacr- 
/jLi\^7], having been py^onouneed lioly, is as strictly a Jewish 
term, as upoupyouvra, acting the priest, is. Consistency 
requires this sense of the word. But when we define it 
in the Hebrew Lexicon, and search for its signification in 
the Hebrew Bible, it does not show itself in the sense of 



370 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



removing sin from the soul by the Holy Spirit. Hence 
this well-nigh demonstrates the truth and fairness of our 
position, notwithstanding the opinion of those thinking 
otherwise, whose ability and name we highly respect. 

(b) Necessity requires the Hebrew sense to be given to 
i^Ytaaixhri^ Tiegiasmene. It is in the perfect tense, and indi- 
cates a past and completed action. This we intimated 
before, as merely necessary to the true sense of the apos- 
tle's declaration, wherein he says that he is a minister 
of the Gospel. He designs the participial clause as a 
mere adjunct to make plain his main affirmation, in which 
he asserts his ministry to the Gentiles. The tense indi- 
cates, in this particular, that the action expressed took 
place, and was finished antecedently to his being a minis- 
ter. Therefore, we can with no propriety say that the 
term means to spiritually clea7ise. For such is a part to 
be preached and enforced by the minister, and it depends 
on the ministry. But this act was NO part, essentially, 
of the Gospel as connected with the apostle's ministry as 
a doctrine^ being independent and simply explanatory. 
Granting that the Jews had a clear conception of God, 
having destroyed ceremonial distinctions, as to Jews and 
Gentiles, the adjunct might be cast out of the text with- 
out doing any violence thereto, that is, without injury to 
the apostle's main declaration. Had he been writing to a 
Church wholly composed of Gentile converts, who were 
ignorant of Jewish prejudices, but who had an idea of 
whence he borrowed his beautiful figure, from the facts in 
the case, we are at a loss to see how he could have used 
the adjunct. Would it not have been unfit and com- 
pletely misunderstood, as, indeed, it has been, by the most 
learned Gentiles? This will seem quite reasonable, too, 
when it is observed that St. Paul, in the former part of 
this Epistle, preached salvation in its fullness and strength, 
and never once used the verb dytoXo), hagiazOy in the whole 
Epistle, except this once. Therefore, the word is neces- 



Arc. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



371 



sarily Hebrew, since it is only adapted to those acquainted 
with Jewish customs and prejudices. 

(c) Exegesis shows that our term is Hebrew in signifi- 
cation. Many to whom he wrote were Jews, with whose 
scrupulousness, concerning fellowship with the Gentiles, 
the New Testament abounds. Our Lord is accused of 
eating with publicans and sinners. Peter hesitates to 
preach the Gospel to Gentiles till he understands the 
import of his vision. So the apostle, in our text, asserts 
that he is a minister to the Gentiles, then brings in the 
explanatory adjunct to make that matter plain to Jewish 
minds, as to how such a thing was possible, that God 
had pronounced the whole Gentile world fit subjects of 
the Gospel. How rational is this idea, as to the force of 
this participial adjunct! In Acts xxii, 3, St. Paul uses 
the same kind of adjunct, where he first asserts that he 
is a Jew ; then, to describe himself in that particular 
properly, as he designed to appear before the Asiatic 
Jews, he introduces, (1.) ;'£/'£vvry,a^vo?, having been born 

in Tarsus; (2.) avarsOpaiifxivoq^ HAVING BEEN BROUGHT UP 

at the feet of Gamaliel; (3.) Tzsiza'Mofiivoq, having been 
TAUGHT according to the exactness of the paternal law. 
The apostle being a thoroughly-educated Jew, his heau 
ideal of a great man among them was not deficient. 
Knowing, therefore, what they would expect to constitute 
an acceptable Jew, having asserted that he was one of 
their nation, he brings in the three participial adjuncts 
above given, to show that he had the essential qualifica- 
tions. Now, any one can see that these adjuncts are no 
essential part of his declaration: "I am verily a man 
which am a Jew." They are simply exegetical and 'pre- 
requisite to his idea of his being a Jew under his circum- 
stances at that time. Hence we tliink that Mr. Kirk- 
ham speaks w^ith propriety when he says, "An adjunct 
or imperfect phrase contains no assertion, or does not 



372 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



amount to a proposition or sentence.'"* So is it in our 
text. Had not the Jewish element in the Church at Rome 
been assured that the mercy of God had come unto the 
Gentiles, and that the apostle's ministry to the heathen 
was lawful^ they would have been infuriated against him, 
and his usefulness would have been destroyed on account 
of the burning antipathy which they held against the Gen- 
tiles. Indeed, his caution, as to how he approaches the 
Jews with Gospel truth all through his Epistles, is no 
inconsiderable evidence in our favor, respecting the nature 
of the adjunct in our text. With these remarks, we sub- 
mit the passage to the unbiased reader, who, we hope, 
will weigh the evidence pro and con, simply adding a kind 
of exegetical translation in these words : That I should he 
a minister of Jesus Christ unto the Gentiles, officiating as 
a priest as to the Gospel of God, in order that the Gentiles 
as an offering may become (for they are not yet) approved, 
having been esteemed (and being esteemed yet) by the Soly 
Ghost, as the lawful subjects of Gosj^el ministrations. 

We now come to the last passage of the twenty-nine in 
the New Testament, where our word aytd^o), hagiazo, is 
found. The doctrine supposed to be couched in this is 
the mystic Turtle, on whose back the "wholly sanctified" 
world stands as their chief support. We allude to that 
famous text, the singular translation of which has, per- 
haps, given birth to that which pious and well-meaning 
men have called " entire sanctification " — a text, too, 
which is constantly quoted as a proof of this position, by 
all talkers and writers on the subject. We will examine it. 

29. 1 Thess. v, 23: "The very God of peace sanctify 
you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, 
and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." 

In the investigation of this passage, in order to find out 
its true meaning, we shall present several objections to 

* Grammar, p. 210. 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



373 



the usual sense which theological writers and commentators 
have given it. As far as we know^, men hold this passage 
to teach, that after the soul has been justified, and simul- 
■ taneously therewith has been regenerated, it must, at some 
indefinite, subsequent period, receive a second blessing — 
if such was not obtained at the same moment with re- 
generation, which is held to be possible, but not prob- 
able — as a necessary qualification for heaven. This is 
also called Christian perfection, or, in the language of our 
text, a being "wholly sanctified." We do not, however, 
understand this text to teach such a doctrine. Hoping, 
therefore, the kind reader will substitute submission to 
candid investigation, for his most sanguine predilections 
of our text, as to the opinions of others, we propose to 
present our exegesis of this passage in the form of ob- 
jections to what some may regard as estabhshed views. 
We believe, however, that the doctrine of "established 
views" is no indemnity against investigation, or satisfac- 
tion to an inquiring and intelligent mind, when the pre- 
sumption is, that by the assaults of reason, through the 
aid of accredited modes of exegesis, the establishment may 
be shaken, if not completely demolished. 

(1.) Our first objection is, that ayid^to, (hagiazo,) to 
make holy, here rendered sanctify, does not mean an in- 
ivard moral act of cleansing, that it no where, between the 
lids of the Bible, is ever synonymous, in signification, 
with the word dvayewdw, [anagennao,) to i^egenerate — 
much less can it have this signification with the accessory 
idea of being intensified, which intensity has been ex- 
pressed by the word " wholly." It has been stated before 
that such is not the meaning of the term in the Hebrew 
Bible in any one passage. It has also been shown that 
when the seventy learned Jews translated the Hebrew 
Bible into Greek, they used hagiazo, almost constantly, 
as the equivalent of the Hebrew ts'ip, kadhash, both 
meaning to sanctify; that is, to make holy in the ceremo- 



374 



EEYIEW OF TVE3LEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



nial and ecclesiastical sense, and that this same Greek 
word is used twenty-nine times in the I^ew Testament. 
The fact has been mentioned that in the Hebrew-English 
Lexicon, kadhash, to make Jioli/, does not mean to in- 
ivardly purify the soul in any one instance. Its definition 
has been given verbatim in our objections in Part First of 
this work so as fully to satisfy the English reader who 
will take the references there given, and examine them 
for himself in their respective places. 

It is, then, self-evident that the Septuagint can not 
give the word any greater force or value than the He- 
brew, since, in all cases, it has the same contexts to the 
word as the Hebrew. It has the same Divine word to 
treat of. If there is any intensity of meaning, our judg- 
ment teaches us that such should be characteristic of the 
Hebrew, and not of -the Greek. That is to say, we would 
expect an original to teach more than a translation, how- 
ever complete the latter may be. Additional to all this, 
the verb now appears in our investigation this twenty- 
ninth time. To us, at least, as not willfully " handling 
the Word of God deceitfully," it does not seem to signify 
the act of imrifying the human soul in any degree. Even 
Rev. Richard Watson, a man of very superior ability as 
a preacher and unparalleled celebrity as a theologian, 
giving the definition of the word sanctify, in his Theo- 
logical Dictionary, speaks first of it as a word used in the 
old dispensation to signify a Church purity, a ceremo- 
nial sanctification, which might be obtained by the ob- 
servance of external rites and ordinances." Very true, 
indeed. He then speaks of the contrast between the 
ceremonial rites of the Mosaic period and the internal 
purity of heart required by Christianity, saying, " That 
dispensation is now at an end. Under the Xew Testa- 
ment the state of thino;s is chano-ed; for now 'neither 
circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a 
new creature.' " Now, why was it that Mr. Watson, 



Arq. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 375 

when telling about the " ceremonial sanctification," as the 
type of the purity of the heart in the Christian dispensa- 
tion, did not pass over, by a very easy transition, and 
quote a passage in the New Testament which would 
clearly teach us that the present dispensation requires the 
inward man — the heart — to be sanctified in the sense of a 
moral purification, instead of speaking about "a new crea- 
ture," which we have shown, in Part First of this work, to 
mean nothing more than one who is regenerated? Does 
Mr. Watson mean to teach us that a merely-regenerated 
man, which the phrase new creature" signifies, is sanctified 
in the full sense in which he seems to have intended ? Cer- 
tainly he did, as we infer from two considerations : First. 
The contrast in his definitions between the requirements of 
the old and new dispensations. Second. The passage he 
quotes from the New Testament containing a doctrine 
sufficient for man's salvation, because it availeth," Avhich 
doctrine, perhaps, every Methodist preacher in the known 
world will say means no more, as an inward work, than 
simply regeneration. Facts, then, show that Mr. Watson, 
in making his transition from the old to the new dispen- 
sation, had no passage to quote containing the word 
ayid^o)^ hagiazo. His definition, therefore, if in favor of 
his word meaning an internal work, as we understand him, 
is objectionable for two reasons : First. His proof-passage, 
which takes a "new creature" as the Christian standard — 
and we are at a loss to know what higher standard can 
be produced — teaches nothing more than a regenerated 
creature. Second. In this passage the word dytd'^a), hag- 
iazo^ is not found — non est. The very word that he was 
defining occurred, we think, more than one hundred times 
in the Old Testament, but there he speaks of a " cere- 
monial sanctification," and twenty-nine times in the New 
Testament, but here he innocently and unAvittingly dodged 
it. Why did he not, when pointedly defining the term as 
ceremonial in the old dispensation, quote one of the 



376 



RETIETV OF WESLETAX PERFECTION. [Pakt II. 



twenty-nine passages of tlie New Testament containing 
it, and prove that noic its meaning has clmngedj and that 
it means an actual and internal sanctification as destroy- 
ing all sin? That he meant the "ceremonial sanctifica- 
tion" to be the type of the whole inward work of grace, 
which was to take place in the Christian dispensation, is 
plain from what he further adds in his definition : The 
thing signified." he says, -namely, internal purity and 
holiness, is no less necessary to a right to the priyileges 
of the Gospel, than the obseryance of those external rites 
was unto the priyileges of the law.'' So we see that Mr. 
Watson, one of the yerj best theological writers, and one 
of the most logical and powerful reasoners that the world 
has eyer produced, has left us sufficient room for conjec- 
turing his failure to proye that the word which he started 
out to define, according to his yiews of the Christian dis- 
pensation, eyer means any more than to regenerate, eren 
granting all that some can ask, namely, that it means to 
cleanse morally^ and that his proof-passage contains it; 
for incidentally his mind rested on a passage haying no 
more in it, as a doctrine, than simply regeneration. TTe 
therefore hold, all things considered, that the celebrated 
proof-passage under consideration, as claimed by sanctifi- 
cationists, does not teach an inward work of grace at all, 
because the word dy.d^o}, (hagiazo,) to sandify, with its 
corresponding word in the Hebrew, has no such meaning 
from the best authority that we can possibly find. 

(2.) The context is against the doctrine known as entire 
sanctification. It proyes that the Thessalonians, at the 
yery time St. Paul wrote this Epistle to them, were in the 
enjoyment of all the purity of heart that God designs to 
men in this life. If so, what need is there for complete 
sanctity as an additional blessino: ? For he addresses the 
Church of the Thessalonians, which is in God the Father 
and in the Lord Jesus Christ." Xow. if a person has God 
for his Father, can he haye any greater? Does he need 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



377 



any more than what this implies ? Has God promised 
any more than what the Thessalonians then had? No, 
he never did, so far as it relates to purity of heart indi- 
cated by the relation to God which they then sustained; 
for when the Almighty enlarged on that part in the Abra- 
hamic covenant which he promised to perform, he declared 
that, in part, he would be A Father, not only unto the 
patriarch, but also unto his seed, which relation, St. Paul 
says, depends on the sole condition, '^If ye be Christ's," 
simply believers, as were the Thessalonian Church — as 
he further describes them, "In the Lord Jesus." Then 
he says that such are "heirs according to the promise," 
which in part is that God will be a Father. It is declared 
in these words : " I will establish my covenant between 
me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, 
for an everlasting covenant : to be a God unto thee, and 
thy seed after thee." Gen. xvii, 7. The Thessalonians, 
then, stood on safe ground, thoroughly saved in the cov- 
enant relation. They were just as much and as certainly 
the children of God, and as acceptable with him as ever 
Abraham was. And — chap, i, 6 — the apostle tells them 
that they had become followers of the Lord. " Having 
received the word in much affliction, with joy in the Holy 
Ghost." Now, this context to our text teaches that the 
Thessalonians had received God's word, that they had the 
Father as their God, the Son as their Savior, the Holy 
Ghost as their Comforter, " in much assurance^ There- 
fore, where is there even a pretext favorable to the notion 
of entire sanctification as an additional inward work to 
what is here implied? Take notice, reader, that when 
writers on this Avonderful blessing attempt to give its evi- 
dences^ they can not say any thing stronger as descriptive 
of those evidences than what is here said of the Thessa- 
lonian Church. At all events none of our authors have. 
The first proof that Dr. Peck gives is, " The witness of 

32 



378 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the Spirit — the testimony of God's Spirit that the soul is 
entirely sanctified."* 

Calvinistic writers have denied entire freedom from sin 
in this life. Against their opinion Mr. Watson brings the 
fourth of his "fatal objections" in these words: "It is 
disproved, also, by all those passages which require us to 
bring forth those graces and virtues which are usually 
called the fruits of the Spirit. That these are to be pro- 
duced during our life, and to be displayed in our spirit 
and conduct, can not be doubted ; and we may then ask 
whether they are required of us in perfection and matur- 
ity? If so, in this degree of maturity and perfection, 
they necessarily suppose the entire sanctification of the 
soul from the opposite and antagonistic evils. "f The sum 
of the matter is this : Our authors make the witness of 
the Spirit a proof of entire sanctification; and since the 
Thessalonians had it in much assurance, we hope that no 
one will deny that they were in the full possession of the 
Divine favor. How can any entire sanctificationist deny 
us our position when their ablest authors are made the 
judges? Can there, then, be any thing like the doctrine 
to which they adhere taught in our text? Would the 
apostle pray Grod to grant them that which they already 
had? Does not the context show, as quoted, that the 
Thessalonians had the whole Godhead ? the whole Divinity 
as their portion ? His holy Word besides ? and what more 
can there be wanting either in time or in eternity ? Are 
we not satisfied if we have all this ? Can God give more 
than himself? Let us, then, " stand fast in the liberty " 
of Christ. Like Paul, let us " keep the faith." As our 
Master hath said, " Continue in my love, then are ye my 
disciples indeed." " Abide in me." " If a man abide 
not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered." • 
Take notice of the several words in these inspired say- " 

* Perfection, Abridged, p. 295. 
f Institutes, Vol. ii, chap. xxix. 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



379 



ings which we put in capitals. Do you not see that they 
all have a like meaning, conveying to us the idea of con- 
tinuance in the regenerate state, not in a going on to seek 
for some other additional blessing called entire sanctifica- 
tion? Observe, also, that the doctrine of man's eternal 
condemnation is not based on the ground of his not ob- 
taining this complete sanctity, but on the ground of his 
not ABIDING in Christ, the vine. It is on this account 
that he is ^' withered." So Peter said, " Add to your faith 
virtue, and to virtue knowledge," etc., with two promises. 
First. Negatively, Ye shall never fall." Second. Posi- 
tively, "An entrance shall be administered unto you abun- 
dantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and 
Savior Jesus Christ." Here is a promise of eternal sal- 
vation in the clearest and strongest terms, not on the 
condition of obtaining complete sanctity, as an inward 
work additional to their first favor in the Lord, but on 
the sole requirement of adding good works, as the fruit 
of the faith which justifies. This addition to faith is what 
we have argued, from the first, to be Christian perfec- 
tion or sanctification — simply keeping the moral law as 
the fruit of justifying faith. Such, also, in substance, is 
the context immediately preceding our text. Hear what 
it says : " Now w^e exhort you, brethren, warn them that 
are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the wxak, 
be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for 
evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, 
both among yourselves, and to all men. Rejoice evermore. 
Pray Avithout ceasing. In every thing give thanks; for 
this is the Avill of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 
Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove 
all things ; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from 
all appearance of evil." This brings us up to our text. 
We see that these points of duty consist in the outward 
works of Christianity, which are the fruits of the justified 
and regenerated man. Omitting, now, the proof-text, we 



380 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOlSr. 



[Part 11. 



quote the rest of the passage which succeeds it, as well as 
that which precedes it. He continues : " Faithful is he 
that calleth you, who also will do it. Brethren, pray for 
us. Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss." It seems 
very strange if St. Paul, in the text before us, intended to 
teach as important a doctrine as some deem entire sancti- 
fication to be, in their own peculiar sense, that he should 
exhort to the observance of almost every conceivable out- 
ward duty of religion, as the fruit of the Christian's faith, 
then stop and throw in a prayer for those Christians, who 
already had the favor of the whole Godhead, to be blessed 
with an inward^ additional work of grace, of such mon- 
strous magnitude that the human mind can not conceive 
of what it can be as superior to regeneration ! that he 
should again take up his exhortation, as to the outward 
duties of religion, concerning prayer, and greeting of the 
brethren with a holy kiss ! We say it is strange that he 
should immediately change to such a great theme, and 
then so suddenly fall back to the less. There is one par- 
ticular feature -in this context which is of further, import- 
ance, when compared with other passages, which will aid 
us in finding out the meaning of the sanctification men- 
tioned in our text. The next verse after our text says, 
"Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." 
AVill do what ? What does the it refer to ? Evidently to 
the work, whatever that work may be, expressed in the 
phrase sanctify. Compare 1 Cor. i, 8, 9, and we have, 
"Who shall confirm you unto the end, that ye may be 
blameless in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ ; God is 
FAITHFUL, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of 
his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." So, is it not clear from 
this passage that St. Paul, the author of both passages 
which we compare, was inspiring the Corinthians with 
courage and assurance in God as to one particular point, 
which was the confirming of them unto the end? He as- 
sures them that God is faithful, implying that he will 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



381 



do it. He thus employs the very language used in the 
context connected with our text in the Thessalonians. 
Does it not, therefore, approximate a certainty, since all 
speakers and writers have phrases strictly peculiar to 
themselves, that he is speaking also of the confirming of 
the Thessalonians, or of their consecration? Observe the 
many points of analogy. In both instances he addresses 
those who are already believers; in both he speaks of God 
as "faithful;" in both he uses the word "blameless;" in 
both he desires this blamelessness to continue; saying in 
one, " Unto the coming of the Lord Jesus ;" in the other, 
" Blameless in the day of the Lord." In the one he says, 
" Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good ;" in the 
other, " So that ye come behind in no gift." Are not 
these manifest analogies? Yet the passage in Corinth- 
ians has not the word sanctifi/ in it at all. So in 2 Thess. 
iii, 3, we have like words : " But the Lord is faithful, 
who shall STABLisii you, and keep you from evil." In 
the passage connected with our text God is said to be 
faithful, so in this ; there he prays for a blameless pres- 
ervation, here, stahlisJi you ; there, " abstain from all ap- 
pearance of evil,^' here, " keep voU from evil" Have 
these corresponding passages no force? Is our text the 
only one of the kind in the New Testament? Notice 
that in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians the apos- 
tle urges them to become so established as not to sin, but 
to live so as to be " kept from evil," as he did in the 
former. But he says nothing about sanctification, in the 
use of the mere verb in question, in his second letter. 
He docs not even name the word in his whole Epistle. 
He, however, uses its seyise in the second, as he does in 
the first, when he tells them that the Lord is faithful to 
" keep you from evil." Observe, also, that our Lord 
prayed for his disciples, and the principal thing in that 
solemn petition — John, chap, xvii — ^is, that the Father 
would " keep them from the evil." That this might be 



382 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



done, lie prayed him to sanctify them through the truth, 
and so keep them in this manner from the evil. There- 
fore, sanctification, as sustained by parallel passages, 
when applied to persons already Christians, as used in 
our text, consists in being kept from evil, which on the 
other hand will imply activity, of course, in all the Chris- 
tian graces. This truly makes it the fruit of faith, and, 
hence, it is never applied to persons except those in cov- 
enant relation with God. Now, if these parallel passages 
will not, of themselves, wholly invalidate the opinion of 
those who think our text teaches an additional, inward 
work to regeneration, there may be some ground for sus- 
picion. We do not say that their minds are not open to 
conviction, or that they have concluded to interpret the 
Scriptures without any context at all. We, therefore, 
maintain that the context is against the usual view. As 
additional, we would suggest that those who adhere to 
it — since we have noticed that the Thessalonians were 
already regenerated — overthrow our arguments on the 
sinlessness of the regenerate state before given, in order 
to clear the ground for the neeessity of what they claim 
in this text. 

(3.) Greek lexicons of established authority disprove the 
usual interpretation of our text. 

The Greek word transited " wholly," is oV.oreAcT?-, ho- 
loteleis. Dr. Edward Robinson defines it thus: Quite 
comjMe, perfect, ivhole. 1 Thess. v, 28. dyidaai bixaq 
o/o—xsTc, that is, wholly, in every part." Here he gives 
it three meanings whereby he finishes his definition. 
Afterward he explains it paraphrastically, departing from 
its exact signification, and giving a free sense, as he 
supposes, of the whole clause. He expresses his view in 
the words, "Wholly, in every part." Now, the careful 
translator must always adhere to the exact definition of 
the words which are to be rendered, and not to any 
one's paraphrase. He must confine himself to the pre- 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



383 



cise sense of words and to syntax. When he departs 
from these he is not translating, but is trying to give his 
own sense of the passage. Excluding, then, the para- 
phrase of Dr. Robinson, which is not made from oXutsaeHc;^ 
holoteleis, alone, which he presumes to define in his Lexi- 
con, but is a kind of compound idea depending partly on 
the verb dyidnai^ hagiasai, sanctify, as united with the 
adjective, and we have just three meanings of the word 
as given by him ; namely, quite complete, perfect, tvhole. 
And if the text is fairly translated according to Dr. 
Robinson, we must use one of these adjectives, and then 
let the paraphrase go what way it will. Passow, by Lid- 
dell and Scott, defines the same word by the one phrase, 
" quite complete.'^ John Groves defines it, " entirely/ fin- 
ished, complete, perfect.^' William Greenfield defines it, 
''■perfect, complete, all, the whole.'' Here are four Lexi- 
cons of well-established authority, not one of which can 
be said, strictly speaking, to define dXoTeXeic;, holoteleis, by 
the word " wholly and for a very good reason. Wholly 
is an adverb, while all the significations given above are 
adjectives, because the Greek word itself is an adjective. 
It must, therefore, be defined by such and not by another 
part of speech. Adjectives, in all Lexicons, are invaria- 
bly defined by other adjectives, verbs by other verbs, 
nouns by other nouns, etc., and, perhaps, in no case can 
this laAV of language be violated without falling into error. 
And so our Lexicons have properly given several defini- 
tions of this, all by the corresponding part of speech. 
The passage, therefore, has been paraphrased in our ver- 
sion of the Scriptures. It has not, strictly speaking, been 
translated; and good men have, to a very considerable 
degree, built up their theory of entire sanctification on 
this text. This is evident from the following facts: 
First. They have named their doctrine " entire sanctifica- 
tion," making the word entire to correspond to the word 
wholly in the paraphrastic translation. Second. The text 



384 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



in hand is constantly used as their proof-passage. Mr. 
Wesley quotes it on the fifty -fourth page of his Plain 
Account of Christian Perfection, to show that the prayers 
found in the New Testament afford " ground for expecting 
to be saved from all sin." Rev. Richard Watson, in his 
Theological Institutes, Vol. ii, chap, xxix, quotes our 
text as proof of entire sanctification in the same manner 
as Mr. Wesley. Dr. Peck says, ''I urge that a state of 
entire sanctification is made a matter of prayer."* He 
then quotes our text as proof. Bishop Hamline, in his 
tract headed ''What is it to be holy?" says, ''Entire 
sanctification is a phrase authorized by this language of 
Paul, in Thessalonians, ' And the very God of peace 
sanctify you wholly f that is, 'entirely.'" (Page 7.) Such 
is the light in which our writers have held this text. We 
conclude, therefore, from the reasoning just advanced, 
which looks to us to be very fair indeed, that persons 
are unjustifiable in taking this passage as a proof, in the 
manner and for the purpose in which it has been held. 
Must the crowning doctrine of the Christian's practical 
life, granting them their own view, be founded on a mere 
paraphrase? 

(4.) Grammatical authority is against the signification 
that entire sanctificationists have given our text. 

In our received translation, " Sanctify you wholly," the 
word "wholly" is an adverb, and quahfies the verb "sanc- 
tify." It answers to the question. How or in what man- 
ner or degree sanctify you? The answer is, "wholly," 
that is, as opposed to a partial work which regeneration 
has been held to be. "May there be neither root nor 
branch of sin left in your soul!" Such seems to be its 
force as it strikes the understanding of every English 
reader who also may understand " sanctify " to pu7nfy 
morally. But in the Greek the pronoun "you" is u/zar, 
humas, and is in the plural number, accusative case. The 

* Christian Perfection Abridged, p. 222. 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



385 



word oXoTsXeig, holoteleis, translated " wholly," agrees with 
this pronoun in number and case according to the usage 
of the Greek language that adjectives must agree with 
their nouns and pronouns in these respects. Now, if we 
understand an ellipsis of the verb to be in our text, we 
may translate the Greek accordingly. Omissions of the 
substantive verb are well known to be very frequent both 
in Hebrew and in Greek. The original stands thus: Aurd(; 

dk 6 Oso': Tij<? dpTjvT^q dyidffat u/xdq 6XoTeX£'i<;. And may the 

God of peace himself make you holy — cjars eTvat, so as to 
he perfect. 

The first time we ever cast our eyes on this text in the 
original, knowing its prominence as a proof-passage among 
sanctificationists, we could not agree to the received trans- 
lation, because it absolutely changed an adjective, having 
number and case to agree with a pronoun hainng these 
properties, into an adverb. It then made that adverb 
qualify the verb " sanctify." We had never known, either 
in the New Testament or in the Greek classics, a similar 
instance of such a mode of translation as to make an 
adjective, having declension, and designed by the writer 
to agree with its noun, changed into an adverb and made 
to qualify a verb. Very true, there are instances aind 
usages in the Greek language of adjectives in the neuter 
gender, being used adverbially — quite common this, but 
not, we think, when in the masculine gender and having 
such syntax as this one has. We are constrained, not- 
withstanding other translations, to inquire why this ad- 
jective has agreement wdth the pronoun, unless that 
agreement be given to it in the verbal translation? The 
mere reader of the Scriptures may translate loosely ; the 
theologian can not. The adjective must have its oivn 
meaning, and syntax or the English reader's theology 
must be false syntax. In order to arrive at the correct 
translation of this text, as to the word olozcXe'ic;^ holoteleis, 
having received a slightly-erroneous impression respecting 



386 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEREECTIOX. [Part II. 



its meaning from Mr. Greenfield who defines it all/' and 
not being pleased with my own translation, I took the 
pains to write for information to my highly-esteemed, very 
scholarly friend, and worthy brother, Kev. Professor W. 
G. Wilhams, formerly my instructor in languages, who 
has filled the classical chair in the Ohio Wesley an Univer- 
sity from the beginning of that excellent institution with 
great success ; who is known to those intimately acquainted 
with him as one of the foremost literary men of our age ; 
whose criticism his students learn to revere as the lex non 
scripta. On the reception of our letter the Professor 
promptly answers concerning our text as follows: 

Ohio Wesleyan rxivERSiTY, 1 
Delaware, 0., June 8, 1863. J 

My Dear Franklin, — I thank you for your letter, with its many 
kind words to myself personally. . . . Your interpretation of 
6?.oTe?ieig is not correct. The word does not mean all; but complete, 
whole, that is, not deficient in its parts. It is a mere difference in the 
idiom of the languages that requires it to be translated as an adverb. 
Supply cjGTE elvat before it, and you may translate by the adjective. 
This only is the sense — " Sanctify you (so as to be) perfect, complete." 

Yours, truly, W. G. Williams. 

We take liberty to publish this much of our friend's 
private communication, and so to speak of him in token 
of merited respect, for his pains, in answering, most kindly 
and carefully, our numerous questions pertaining to the 
languages, while under his careful instruction, as to his 
close, verbal manner of translating the dead languages, 
at first to the annoyance of the student, but afterward 
bringing forth the peaceable fruits of gladness, satisfac- 
tion, and unfeigned thanks. Now, from this translation, 
here given to strengthen our argument, and to acknowl- 
edge our friend, we venture there is no successful appeal. 
The text, then, assumes another aspect. Observe, the 
Professor paraphrases the meaning of the adjective, "Not 
deficient in its parts." In this he, no doubt, agrees with 
the paraphrase of Dr. Robinson, who has it, " Wholly, in 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



387 



every part." Those paraphrases evidently give the true 
sense of the apostle, but this perfection in every part is to 
be applied as to the outivard parts of Christian duty which 
are the fruits of regeneration. Two facts will prove this: 
(1.) The context immediately connected with our text is 
to this very effect. (2.) The adjective in question means 
perfect as opposed to " deficiency in its parts," and not 
as opposed, necessarily, to uncleanness, that is, sin yet in 
the believer. The former idea agrees with the context ; 
the latter is contradicted by the context. The word is 
compounded of oyJ.o?, {Iwlos^ the ivJioIe, and r^Ao-, (telos,) 
" the fulfillment, completion, accomplishment of any thing." 
It is the end of any thing, that is, deed — the eyid of life, 
of time, the final issue, and such like ; but not, so far as 
we know, does it mean the end of removing sin from the 
human soul. To say that it is to be applied to the 
inward man, is lightly to esteem regeneration, is to depart 
from the iisus loquendi of the verb, is to disregard paral- 
lel passages, and to neglect the context. Observe, further, 
that the verbal translation of Professor Williams makes 
the verb oyAoai, {liagiasai,) sanctify, to stand alone, that 
is, without any adverbial qualification. It takes the as- 
sumed adverb from the verb, and turns it to its proper 
use as the qualifier of the pronoun "you." Therefore, 
the verb " sanctify," standing unqualified, must not be 
used in the sense of destroying all sin from the soul, even 
granting to entire sanctificationists the application of the 
word iyiwardly. For speaking of the word " sanctified," 
Mr. Wesley says, "By this term alone he (St. Paul) 
rarely, if ever, means ' saved from all sin ;' that, conse- 
quently, it is not proper to use it in that sense, without 
adding the word loholly, entirely, or the like."* Now, 
the word " entirely," in connection with the verb " to 
sanctify," is no where to be found in the w^ords of inspi- 
ration, nor any thing of the kind, so as grammatically to 

* Plain Account of Christian Perfection, p. 51. 



388 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



intensify the meaning. As for the word " wholly,'' on a 
fair, impartial, syntactical, and lexicographical use of 
oXoTsXst^:, holoteleis, it departs from the verb, and so the 
good author of the ^' Plain Account" comes in and tells 
the advocates of his own doctrine, that " IT is not proper 
TO use it in that sense," namely, "saved from all 
SIN." But on page 54 of the "Plain Account" he quotes 
our text in proof of entire sanctification. Therefore, it is 
improperly employed, or else the verbal translation is 
incorrect. But if this is inaccurate, we impeach the very 
science in and through which Divine revelation has been 
given, and by which it must be interpreted. Consequently, 
of the two difficulties in question, we would, thus, choose 
that which is productive of the most fatal results. If we 
maintain the translation, let the reader calculate the issue, 
as to the doctrine. Let us here understand our verb to 
keep its regular Hebrew signification — make you holy, 
or sanctify you, in the sense of setting you apart, and 
consecrating you to the Divine commands, so as to keep 
them all in order to be perfect. This perfection is the 
fruit of a former regeneration, which still is to continue 
yielding fruit a hundred-fold. It just agrees with our 
argument from the beginning. It is a perfection or sanc- 
tification as to the way. "If ye love me, keep my com- 
mandments." 

(5.) A fifth objection to the usual interpretation of the 
text is, that ivhile the doctrine of entire sanctification is 
claimed to he taught in the tuords, " Sanctify you wholly, 
the second clause, which means the same thing as the first, 
is contrary to such an inward blessing. We notice, 

(a) That the two clauses of our text mean the same thing 
theologically. We understand the first part of the sen- 
tence, dyidffai Ufj.d(; dXozsXeU, MAKE you HOLY, SO aS to be 
perfect, to be to some extent a generic expression, that 
is, such as is not sufficiently explanatory in itself, but 
requiring the expansion of the idea in other words, so as 



Aro. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 389 

to. declare the sense fully and clearly. All this we un- 
derstand the apostle to have done in the second clause 
of the verse, in these words : Ka\ oXuxXripov oixwv rd iz^^thim^ 

xal ij </^o/ij, xai rd ffui/xay d/iifj.TW(; i> ttj -rzapooffia too xupioo ijiJM'j 

^IriGoo Xpi(TToo rrjprjdeiT). And may your ivhole spirit, and 
souly and body, blamelessly unto the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ be kept. Dr. Adam Clarke evidently understood 
the two clauses of this verse to be theologically synony- 
mous. He says, "The apostle prays that this compound 
being, in all its parts, powers, and faculties, w^hich he 
terms oXi^xXr^pw^ their whole, comprehending all parts, every 
thing that constitutes man and manhood, may be sancti- 
fied, and 'preserved blameless till the coming of Christ; 
hence we learn, first, that body, soul, and spirit are de- 
based and polluted by sin ; second, that each is capable 
of being sanctified, consecrated in all its powers to God, 
and made holy; third, that the whole man is to be 
preserved to the coming of Christ, that the body, soul, 
and spirit may be then glorified within ; fourth, that 
in this state, the whole man may be so sanctified as to 
be preserved blameless, till the coming of Christ." Mr. 
Benson, also, understood these clauses to be the same in 
the theological sense. He says the apostle's words are 
intended to teach us "a prayer that all our powers of 
mind and body, the rational, including the understanding, 
the judgment, the conscience, and will; the animal, com- 
prehending the affections, passions, and sensations ; and 
corporal, namely, the members and senses of our bodies, 
should be wholly sanctified ; that is, purified from pol- 
lution, dedicated to God, and employed in glorifying him." 
Now, that both these able and learned commentators un- 
derstood these two clauses of the verse to mean the same 
thing, appears in the fact that both used the word " sanc- 
tified," in the second clause, for no other reason, we 
presume, than that they so understood the latter part of 
the text. Yet in the second clause the word aytd'^w, 



390 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



liagiazo, is not found in any of its forms, nor does any 
thing of the kind appear in the English version that 
would seem as a translation of this verb. It is further 
remarkable, that our commentators appear, by using the 
word " sanctified," when commenting on the second 
clause, to clearly state their views, as if the several com- 
ponent parts of man mentioned therein were the gram- 
matical subject of sanctified," whereas they are, accord- 
ing to syntax, the subject of the verb xrip-qOei-q^ {teretheie^ 
may he preserved. Is this a proper way of treating a 
passage of Scripture? Will this kind of exegesis give 
the true sense ? Is there not something amiss here ? 
If spirit, soul, and body, in the second clause, be the sub- 
ject of " sanctified," as we understand their w^ords, a 
verb not found in this clause of the text at all, what is 
the syntax ,of r-qprjOet-q, may he preserved f That is, as 
the English grammarian would say, what is the "subject, 
or nominative," of may he preserved? If any one thinks 
that this is a "play upon words," let him remember that 
grammar, closely applied to the Scriptures, is one of the 
best keys to theology. How is it possible to have a cor- 
rect theology if we do not read the Scriptures correctly? 
The use that we would make of this is, simply, to clear the 
two clauses of any blending together of ideas, as to their 
respective verbs. For the invocation of the apostle in 
the first is, that the Thessalonians may be sanctified, and 
in the second it is that they may he preserved blamelessly. 
Although they say concerning the latter, that the several 
parts of the whole man, as mentioned in that clause, are 
to be "sanctified," being not a little suspicious of the 
diction, in view of their theory of sanctification, we most 
heartily adopt the idea. 

[h) If, then, the theological idea is the same in both 
parts of the text, a thing just proved from the writings 
of entire sanctificationists, the next thing is to seek a same- 
ness in the sense of the verbs used in the two clauses respect- 



arg. xvii.] perfection and sanctification. 



391 



ively^ when taken in (heir proper and respective forces as 
they stand with other words in their own clauses. If 
ayLdaai^ (hagiasai,) sanctify, or MAKE holy, be taken in the 
sense of consecrate, which is a secondary signification 
often used, that is, consecrate you (so as to be) perfect, 
complete^ etc., as opposed to breaking any one of the 
commands included in the moral law of God, we perceive 
that the final object of the sanctification, as indicated by 
the ellipsis which we supply and expressed in the adjec- 
tive 6Xorehiq, (holoteleis ,) perfect, is to so consecrate them as 
thus to keep all the Divine laws, as the fruit of their 
regeneration, just as we have shown perfection to be in 
several passages from the Old Testament, as discussed in 
former arguments. And if persons thus consecrated to 
God are made perfect as to the law, it is obvious that 
their perfection and sanctification, which are the same, 
consist in being kept, or preserved from sinning. Such is 
precisely the sense also of the verb in the second clause, 
with the adverb atUij-rwq, (amemptos,) blamelessly. The 
prayer is that spirit, soul, and body may be preserved 
blamelessly. Now, a blameless preservation can only have 
one meaning as it is here used of Christians, which is such 
a consecration of the Thcssalonians to the Divine law as to 
be hlamelcssly preserved, in respect to it as their rule of con- 
duct. For it is as inconceivable for blame to be laid to any 
subject of moral government without a supposed law, from 
the violation of which it should arise, as it is inconceiva- 
ble for sin to be imputed to a moral subject without law, 
and, no doubt, the idea of blame is used in the sense of 
sin. There is, therefore, not only a sameness in the 
clauses theologically, but there is also an identity in the 
meaning of the verbs in the two parts of the text, a 
thing which we think any reasonable mind will regard as 
absolutely necessary, when it is granted that the parts 
are one in theological signification. 

(c) If we take the phrase, " sanctify you wholly," as 



392 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. 



[Past II. 



a correct exponent of the Divine mind, and give it the 
usual sense which it has received as a proof-passage 
among our brethren of entire sanctification, it is agreed 
that such signification would apply the doctrine of the 
first clause inwardly to the soul — would make it an inter- 
nal work additional to the new birth. But the second 
clause being the same in theological idea, and the words 
as argued in (b) being identical in sense, how are we to 
make the phrase " be preserved blamelessly," agree in 
meaning with this inward work on such an interpretation? 
Are not entire sanctificationists under obligations to extri- 
cate themselves from this difficulty? A faith, or system 
of theology, proceeding from an infinitely-perfect Being, 
can not be imperfect unto manifest contradictions. We 
have either received wrong impressions of the Divine 
Author of revelation, or else we do not understand his 
word. It does not appear clearly tenable to say that the 
sense of " sanctify you wholly," is to be blessed more 
powerfully than the regenerate are, so as to be kept 
blameless. This, it is true, is the exegesis of some. 
Such is not what the verbal translation would allow. It 
is sanctify you so as to be 2)erfect, and not so as to he pre- 
served hlameless. For, granting the objector this view, he 
might hold the first clause to mean an inward work, and 
the second the fruit of that work ; but instead of this, the 
Thessalonians were to be sanctified so as to be perfect, 
which perfection consists in a blameless preservation from 
sin, that is, from committing sin, as taught in the second 
clause; so that instead of the latter part of the text ex- 
pressing the outward fruit of the internal grace taught in 
the former, both verbs express the one thing, namely, the 
keeping of the Divine law as the fruit of the new birth. 
We hold, therefore, that the common exposition of this 
tfext is contrary to its own parts. 

(6.) Points of analogy, as found in other passages 
of Scripture, present a strong presumption against the 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



393 



usual interpretation of our text. Since " all Scripture is 
given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine," 
it behooves us to pay particular attention to some of the 
phrases found in our text. We will compare such with 
similar ones in other passages. If these others do not 
contain the doctrine which some of our brethren suppose 
to be in our text, then, from the close analogy existing 
between the passages, as their own phraseology will show, 
there will arise, at least, a strong presumption against the 
doctrine of an inward work of grace herein taught, (a) 
Our text contains the expression " God of peace ;" so Rom. 
xvi, 20 : " And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under 
your feet shortly." This is a promise on condition that the 
Romans, as Christians, act as become such, in the sight 
of the moral law of God ; for the verse before says, " I 
would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple 
concerning evil." Then comes in the above promise ad- 
ditional, that the God of peace shall bruise Satan. The 
fact that this is of the form of a benediction, or farewell 
words of the apostle, as he approaches the end of his 
Epistle -to the Romans, and that the same characterizes 
our text, brings the two passages to look very much alike 
in their design ; but this one in Romans has no intimation 
of any thing like sanctification in it, as an inward work. 
It has, however, if this be regarded in the sense of an 
outward dedication, or consecration of one's self to God, 
in the sense of avoiding sin of every kind, and of doing 
good; for it says, "I would have you . . . simple 
concerning evil. And [on this condition] the God of 
peace shall bruise Satan." If Satan is bruised, that is, 
his power crushed, shall we not suppose them to be about 
as nearly "wholly sanctified" as men can become? Be 
ye, therefore, as those born of God, " simple concerning 
evil." Be ye wise unto that which is good," as the evi- 
dence of a justified relation, and Satan is bruised — he is 
conquered and thou art sanctified. There is just the same 



394 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



sanctification taught here, and the work is meant to be 
just as thorough as in our text — 1 Thess. v, 28. 

Again. 2 Cor. xiii, 11 : " Finally, brethren, farewell. 
Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in 
peace ; and the God of love and peace shall be with you." 
Here is a passage, like the text, requiring the brethren to 
"be perfect," which I have abundantly shown, and will 
yet show further, means a perfection as to the outward 
life of the man, classed, too, with those expressions of 
its kind — " be of good comfort," " be of one mind," " live 
in peace " — all indicating the outward part of Christian- 
ity — as St. Paul says, " the fruits of the Spirit." This 
passage resembles our text in several respects. First. It 
is near the close of the Epistle, and partakes of the form 
of a benediction. Second. It is followed by the same 
salutation, " Greet one another with a holy kiss." Third. 
" The God of love and peace shall be with you," which is 
implied in our text in the phrase God of peace." Fourth. 
The expression, "Be perfect," in this passage, and the 
words, " Your whole spirit, and soul, and body be pre- 
served blameless," in our text, by no human device can 
be made to mean any thing else but the same thing in a 
practical, theological sense. Fifth. Does not this passage 
teach entire sanctification, as an inward work, as clearly 
and as strongly as our text does? But this one only 
teaches the fyniit of inward purity, and does not use the 
word sanctify at all. They are already inwardly pure, 
and so considered by the apostle ; the thing now to be 
done is to acquire fully^ and to perfection, all the good 
Christian graces required of all God's people as the evi~ 
deuce of this state. Therefore, there is strong suspicion 
that the phrase " sanctify you wholly," in our version, is 
generally accepted in too strong a sense. 

Take Phil, iv, 9 : " Those things which ye have both 
learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do ; and 
the God of peace shall be with you." Here is " the God 



Arg. XVII.] TERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



395 



of peace " again found, promised to such as do as the 
apostle did, Avhich doing is the fruit of their justification. 
As he said — 1 Cor. xi, 1 — " Be ye followers [Greek, 
fxiiiriTai, mimetai^ imitators, mimics\ of me even as I also 
am of Christ." Paul followed Christ — he imitated him. 
He tells the Philippians to do as he had done, and as 
he was doing, adding the promise as a reward, " And the 
God of peace shall be with you.'' Now, considering that 
St. Paul, as a Christian, committed no sin, that he com- 
manded the Church to follow himself in such a course, 
that he prayed the God of peace to sanctify [consecrate] 
you so as to be perfect," that he enlarged on the same 
idea, saying, And I pray God your whole spirit, and 
soul, and body, be preserved blameless," do we not see as 
much taught to the Philippians to favor an inward work 
of grace as we do to the Thessalonians ? Yet the verb 
dytd'^a), (Jiagiazo,) to sanctify, is not once recorded in the 
Epistle to the Philippians ! Does not this look suspicious? 

Again. Heb. xiii, 20, 21: "Now the God of peace 
. . . make you perfect in every good work, to do his 
will, working in you that w^hich is well pleasing in his 
sight." Is not this a prayer for the God of peace to 
make the Church perfect? Does not this show that the 
perfection spoken of is to consist " in every good work ?" 
Are not these works the fruits pf regeneration ? If they 
failed to do all those things, w^ould they not then be sub- 
ject to blame? Was not this prayer, then, the same in 
substance as our text, which says keep or preserve you 
blameless? Is not this the same kind of perfection that 
we argued from several passages of the Old Testament, 
wherein we found perfection to consist in keeping the 
moral law out of pure love to God ? Where is the essen- 
tial difference between this and the grand proof-passage 
of our brethren in Thessalonians? Is not this what I 
started out to prove in the second part of this work, that 
perfection and sanctification, held to be the same, consist 



896 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



in keeping the moral law as the sum of God's will to 
man; not merely in the sense of doing no wrong, which 
would not be possible — a negative Christianity can not 
save — ''None of us liveth to himself" — but also in the 
positive sense of doing all the conceivable good we pos- 
sibly can? 

(h) The verb zr^rjiw^ (tereo,) to keep or preserve, found 
in our text, affords us another point of analogy, and so 
strengthens our interpretation of the passage — John xiv, 
15 — ''If ye love me keep my commandments," as the test 
of inward love. This is just the same as that in our text, 
where the apostle prays that the Thessalonians may be 
kept blamelessly; for if any one is blameless, it is he 
who keeps the commandments. But, since Dr. Adam 
Clarke and Mr. Benson regard the first and second clauses 
of our text as theologically the same, and since Mr. Watson 
says, "In 1 Thess. v, 23, the apostle first prays for the 
entire sanctification Of the Thessalonians, and then for 
their preservation in that hallowed state, unto the coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ,' "^ this passage tends to con- 
firm what we have written concerning it, that the word 
sanctify only means to heep the commands. The same argu- 
ment is found in John xvii, 15, " I pray that thou shouldest 
keep [tt^otjV);?, Ureses'] them from the evil." This he 
said in reference to verse 12, where he said, "While I 
was with them in the world, I kept [er^^/xjav, eteroun, 
was accustomed to Jceejj'] them in thy name." At this 
time the loving heart of the Master feels for his disciples, 
being about to leave them, and he prays, " Sanctify [or 
MAKE HOLT, in the sense of keeping them from evil, verse 
15] them through thy truth ; thy word is truth." Can 
any thing be plainer than that,^ in his prayer to the Fa- 
ther, he used the word keejj and the word sanctify in the 
same sense, that is, to indicate sanctification, consisting 
in keeping or preserving his disciples from evil ? " Keep " 

* Institutes, Vol. ii, chap. xxix. 



Arg. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 397 

is to be taken in the sense of " keep them from the evil,'^ 
as the prayer has it. Sanctify," make holy, or conse- 
crate, seems to indicate such a dedication of their lives to 
God, that they would be kept from the evil. St. Paul 
was an inspired apostle of the same Gospel that Christ 
preached. He understood the precise sense of the words 
that the Master himself used. He employed the same 
two words in his prayer for the Thessalonian Church, and 
that, too, when he was about to close his Epistle and 
commit them to God, corresponding to our Lord, being 
about to leave his disciples, when he prayed in a manner 
exactly similar. Therefore, as Christ used them for the 
disciples in his prayer, so the apostle did in the same sig- 
nification, namely, as given above. No one can reason- 
ably show that our Savior meant an inward work of grace. 
They had this already; they were already the branches, 
chap. XV, 5. His prayer referred to a consecration 
through — by means of — the truth, which is said to be 
"thy AVord." Therefore, the presumption is strong, and 
perhaps the conclusion inevitable, that St. Paul intended 
the same sense of the terms. 

Again. 1 John v, 18 : " Whosoever is born of God sin- 
neth not ; but he that is begotten of God keepeth [rrjpel 
terei] himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." 
On this passage observe: First. One born of God is inci- 
dentally spoken of as St. John's beau ideal of what God 
requires of the heart of man while he lives on this earth. 
Second. As a fruit of such a state of heart — for there is 
no pui'er state — he " sinneth not." Third. He " keepeth 
himself." Fourth. " That wicked one toucheth him not." 
Can there be any more, or any greater degree of sancti- 
fication than, first, to be born of God? second, to be 
kept from sin? third, to be even out of reach of the 
devil, while he so keeps himself? Does any man need 
any more than what is here taught, and taught also to 
the Thessalonians, who are said to be the people of God, 



398 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



and afterward prayed for that they might be kept such, 
that is, in that state Avhich John calls ''horn of Godf ' 
These analogies seem to be very close. If we reject their 
force, may we not, as ministers and expounders of the 
Gospel, absolutely cease at once to attempt to prove Scrip- 
ture by Scripture? Many such parallel passages might 
be adduced, but the merits of our argument do not neces- 
sarily depend on such evidence as these afford; neverthe- 
less, they support, in a degree, and in a very great degree ; 
for if the doctrine held in our text by some of our breth- 
ren be true, all things concerning the Epistle considered, 
and the condition of those to whom it was written, then, 
our parallel passages are as certainly false as an axiom 
in mathematics is certainly true, because they set forth 
the way of salvation perfectly, under the idea of regener- 
ation, and the keeping of the moral law as its fruit, with- 
out any mention whatever of the word sanctify, much 
less of sanctify ivholly. As to this great proof-passage, 
then, which says, " Sanctify you wholly," as it is in our 
authorized version, there seems to be a slim chance for 
making it a proof of a fundamental doctrine, as it is held 
to be. For to us it does not seem that the word ever 
means to cleanse the soul of man morally, that the con- 
text will allow such a sense, that lexicons will allow such 
a sense as wholly to be given to the adjective, that gram- 
mars will allow an adjective to qualify an action, when 
it has syntax to agree with and quahfy a noun, that the 
verbal translation will support it, or that the points of 
analogy will any where sanction it. 

(7.) Besides what has been said by way of objection 
to opinions heretofore held of our text, we may briefly 
add that the rare occurrence of the word dyid^co, hagiazo, 
in the N^w Testament, especially when in the most of 
these cases Dr. Adam Clarke and others give it a cere- 
monial sense, is a weighty argument against our brethren 



Abo. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



399 



who give the word the signification of a moral and inter- 
nal act. 

{a) The word, virtually, does not occur once in the 
four Gospels, that is, in such a sense as would be suitable 
to those who hold to the usual view of our text ; for it is 
found only three times in St. Matthew's Gospel. In one 
of these it is in the Lord's prayer, and translated " hal- 
lowed." The other two instances are in chap, xxiii, where 
"^oZtZ" and a gift'' are said to be sanctified. No one 
would think of making any of these places a proof in 
favor of the so-called entire sanctification. To quote 
them is enough. St. Mark does not use dytd^^w, Jiagiazo, 
once. It occurs but once in St. Luke, and that is in the 
Lord's prayer, just as in St. Matthew. Here is the Gos- 
pel, as preached and taught by Christ, given in historical 
form by three candid and disinterested witnesses and his- 
torians, in whose mouths every word shall be established. 
These all declare the ministry of our Lord, and in sub- 
stance they exactly agree; yet they are all perfectly 
silent as to the use of this word in any passage in which 
the most sanguine entire sanctificationist could think of 
claiming it in his favor. It is found four times in St. 
John's Gospel, all of which have been examined, accord- 
ing to our view, in this argument. Depending on those 
explanations, we hold that never once did our Lord use 
the word to suit our brethren in all his public ministry. 
This just agrees with what we have advanced in Argu- 
ment IX, where we discussed this point from the character 
of our Lord's preaching, under the idea that he always 
preached, as an inward grace, regeneration, since he, in 
apparently an incidental manner, employs the terms of 
the Abrahamic covenant, which affords no further doctrine 
of an inward character than simply the new birth. Now, 
a difficulty is about to present itself, just here, which en- 
tire sanctificationists never can surmount while the world 
stands. We present it thus : The four Gospels — or each 



400 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



one of them taken separately — either teach a full and 
complete Scriptural purity and sanctification to be had, 
on the part of God's people, or they do not. The latter 
alternative, of course, we at once repudiate as basely un- 
sound, and accept the former. But in the Gospels we 
have just found that the word to sanctify is wanting in 
the sense that would justify the impending doctrine. The 
only alternative, therefore, that we have left, is to say 
that the true Scriptui'al purity of heart and life which the 
Gospels demand is stated therein in some other phraseol- 
ogy than by the verb 6.ycd^(o, (hagiazo,) to sanctify, or by 
any noun of the same stem, since its derivatives are also 
wanting, namely, dyia<7rj.dc, (Jiagiasmos,) holiness, kyiuxiwri, 
(liagiosune^ holiness, and dywrriq, (hagiotes,) holiness. These 
may be all said to be kindred nouns. They do not once, 
any one of them, occur in the Gospels. They are used 
in the Epistles only. This shows that the full declaration 
of the Gospel of Christ, as taught in the Gospels, is not 
taught by the words of this family. Therefore we hold 
that it is taught and all fully declared in the doctrine of 
regeneration, as the inward work, and in the keeping of 
the commandments, to the utmost of the believer's capac- 
ity as the test thereof, as the outward work. We mean 
by this, let the entire sanctificationist, touching this point, 
lay aside his old terms and phxises, and let him show the 
equivalent of his doctrine in the words of the Gospels, 
confining himself to Scripture phraseology, and then let 
him see what he will have. His doctrine will evaporate 
like fog before the sun, and for the life of him he can 
find nothing more taught in the Gospels respecting the 
point in question than simply the new birth and its fruits. 
There can be no objection to considering the subject thus 
in the Gospels, apart from the Epistles, since such objec- 
tion would be equally against ourself. All this will well 
sustain us in the use of those parallel passages wherein 
we show that all the sanctification taught in 1 Thess. v, 



Arq. XVII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



401 



23, whatever sense he may give the passage, is taught in 
different but equivalent terms in all such corresponding 
texts as we have adduced, having such exact points of 
analogy in common with the great proof-passage in ques- 
tion. Our brethren, therefore, who preach complete sanc- 
tity, in their sense of the phrase, do more than Christ 
did, although he said, " The servant is not greater than 
his lord." 

(6) In several of the Epistles the word kyid^u)^ hagiazo, 
does not occur, and in most of those where it does, even 
entire sanctificationists and others have been free to rea- 
son it away from themselves. In Romans it occurs but 
once, and those who take it there to signify an inward 
work of grace must represent the Gentiles as so sanctified 
hefore they hear the Gospel, so that their doctrine will 
prove too much. This being the case, St. Paul preached 
justification by faith to the Romans, and the inward work 
of the Holy Spirit as connected therewith. These he 
powerfully argued, defended, and illustrated, and they 
were all the Gospel he preached to them. The word 
does not occur once in 2 Corinthians. Did the apostle 
think that the Church, on receiving his first Epistle 
about one year before, containing the word four times, 
had now become wholly sanctified," and did not need 
any more on the subject? In the Epistle to the 
Galatians, remarkable for clearness and force of argu- 
ment concerning justification by faith, the inspired author 
strangely and entirely omits the use of the word. He 
told them all about justification by faith ; he warned them 
against Jewish apostates, but strangely forgot to say, 
"Now, brethren, ye are justified by faith, but that will 
not do. Ye must seek a greater work than regeneration. 
* The God of peace sanctify you wholly.' " In Ephesians 
the word is used but once, and then our commentators 
give us reason to suppose that the apostle had reference 

to water baptism. In the Epistles to the Philippians, the 

34 



402 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon, James, 2 
Peter, and the three General Epistles of St. John, the 
word does not once occur. Yet no man would say that 
these had not received the Gospel in full. Therefore, it 
is self-evident to our mind that there can be no essential 
meaning in the word, even if men add to it all the ad- 
verbs imaginable. This confirms to us, also, what we 
Jiave before argued, that regeneration contains all the 
Gospel as an inward work. 

(8.) This brings us to another idea, which we offer 
against the views of some on this question. That entire 
sanctifieation is never argued in full, explained, or illus- 
trated as regeneration is. Those who credit the doctrine 
hold it to be a greater work than the new bu'th. They 
think it absolutely essential, even though God should do 
it in death. It, nevertheless, must take place ; and yet, 
while regeneration, the less blessing, is argued powerfully, 
clearly, and embellished with practical illustrations, never 
was this doctrine so taught in one single instance! 

(9.) If the word in this proof-passage be taken in the 
sense in which some regard it, the authors who have 
maintained the same view, we think, will clash with them- 
selves. For, on Rom. xv, 16, they seem to teach that 
St. Paul — if we give them the consequences of their 
theological position — was preaching the Gospel to the 
Gentiles after God had sanctified them in heart, while on 
our text they would take the ground that the prayer, 
"sanctify you wholly," should be answered in behalf of 
persons already gospelized and regenerated.. With due 
respect to these good men, we frankly confess that they 
seem here to present a difficulty to the human mind. 

(10.) Finally, after this long investigation of the word, 
we think that it has maintained its Hebrew use in every 
instance. The word holy may and should, we presume, 
enter into the meaning of it in order to give the primary 
sense in every place where it is used. "We can not see 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



403 



an occurrence in which such a translation of it would 
interfere with what we call the secondary meanings. The 
word proves itself, on the closest exegesis which we are 
capable of giving it, to always have the one Hebrew and 
ceremonial signification. If these objections do not en- 
tirely render void this passage as the great proof-text of 
entire sanctificationists, then, of course, they can in regu- 
lar order be refuted. 



ARGUMENT XVIII. 

\iyia(Trxdq — HAGIASMOS. 

We now take up the 'Ayiaff/xdq, hagiasmos, argument. 
We have already treated of the two words akin to this 
one ; namely, the adjective ayto<;, (Jiagios,) lioly, and the 
derivative dytdXio^ {hagiazo^ to make Iwly. The word now 
to be considered is the noun ayiaaiioq^ (hagiasmos,) holiness, 
or sanetification. This noun is derived from the verb dis- 
cussed in our last argument. " Nouns formed from verbs 
. . . denote the action of the verb. These are. formed 
by adding to the root of the verb . . . (mos,) 
... as odop-oixai^ (pdur-omai^ to lament, ddup-fi6q, (odur- 
mos,) lamentation."* Now, as the noun "lamentation" 
is derived from the verb "to lament," so the noun "holi- 
ness" is derived from the verb "to make holy." But 
observe the quotation says, "Nouns derived from verbs 
. . . denote the action of the verb." In the same 
section of the Grammar he says they " often express not 
so much the action itself, as the effect or object.'' The 
noun in hand, perhaps, may express either the action or 
the effect of the verb. But we have not yet found a place 
in Scripture where we have any clear assurance that the 
verb means to cleanse morally; hence, the noun, if it 

"■-Crosby's Greek Grammar, ^ 305. 



404 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



" denotes the action of the verb/' or the " effect^^^ can not - 
mean a sanctification in the moral sense; that is, in the 
sense of purifying the soul, if taken on etymological 
principles, to which we presume no one will object, except 
him who has a theory to maintain, who may raise the cry 
of uncertainty ! Such is sometimes done when etymology 
is introduced into theology. 

To this we reply: 1. If language is a science, treat it 
as such in theology, as far as reasonable, as well as in 
grammar. 2. If a consistent theology can be maintained, 
having etymology in its favor, is not such a theology 
much more reasonable and strong than some other theory, 
perhaps less free from objections, which has the etymology 
of words against it ? 3. If etymology constitutes one of the 
main divisions of the o-rammar of a lano^uaore, is it not as 
important to observe it, as it is to observe syntax, since 
the former confines the mind to the exact meaning, in 
perhaps nineteen cases out of twenty, as much as the 
latter does to exact construction? 

Waiving all objections, this word is found ten times in 
the original of the New Testament ; namely, Rom. vi, 19, 
22; 1 Cor. i, 30; 1 Thess. iv, 3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. ii, 13 ; 
1 Tim. ii, 15; Heb. xii, 14; 1 Peter i, 2. In five of 
these places it is rendered, in our authorized version of the 
Bible, by the word "holiness," and five by the word 
" sanctification." These ten passages we Avill proceed to 
examine, as briefly as the argument Avill admit, to see if 
the original word 6.y>.aGij.6q^ Jiagiasmos^ in any instance, 
means an inward work of grace. Before we notice each 
passage separately, however, let us notice the following 
three preliminary considerations: 1. The meaning of the 
word, from an etymological stand-point, is already settled 
in our favor, unless it can be shown that the verbal root, 
which we examined in the last argument, really means 
an internal act of purifying. 2. The word, says Dr. 
Robinson, is "not found in Greek writers," which is, to 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



405 



US at least, a very strong presumption that it follows the 
Hebrew sense ; as the abstract expression of the idea 
contained in the verbal root, just as its root followed the 
Hebrew idea as presented in the last argument. 3. Grant- 
ing the verbal root of this noun, which was discussed in 
the last argument, not to mean an internal act of purify- 
ing the soul, analogy, as well as etymology, is against 
us saying that the noun in question means an inward 
work. For confining the word BaTzn^^w, (haptizo,) to bap- 
tize, to the ceremonial act performed by water, we would 
not presume to say that its derived noun Ba7Trt(Tfj.dq, (bap- 
tismos,) baptism, means an internal action or effect. Yet 
we have just as good reason to so consider it, as we have 
to regard holiness, as expressed by 6/ta(Tfj.d<;, hagiasmos, an 
internal action or efiect. It is precisely an analogous 
case on the hypothesis. The etymology and form of the 
two words are exactly similar, being built on the same 
principle of derivation. Or we might as well say that a 
salutation, such as the Pharisees loved to receive in the 
markets, was an internal act of the Holy Spirit ; for, being 
ae7za<Tij.<jq^ aspasmos, in the Greek, and derived from affTrd^ofiat, 
aspazomai, to salute, which does not mean an inward act, 
neither can the noun salutation, which is apparent to all. 

1. Rom. vi, 19 : " For as ye have yielded your members 
^ servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity ; 
even so now yield your members servants to righteousness 
unto holiness." There seems to be several fatal objec- 
tions against us taking the word " holiness," in this quo- 
tation, in the sense of an inward grace. 

(1.) The sco]ye of the whole chapter is not to urge the 
Romans to seek such a blessing, additional to regenera- 
tion, but to urge them not to remain in sin ; which just 
agrees with the use of the word as we hold it. In verse 
1 he says, Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
abound?" where he, undoubtedly, anticipates an objec- 
tion to the keeping of the moral law, arising from his 



406 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 

saying in the former chapter, that "where sin abounded 
grace did much more abound." He says as a part of the 
answer to such an objection, " How shall we that are dead 
to sin live any longer therein?" That is, we must keep 
the moral law, having become dead to sin in the moment 
of justification and regeneration, as the fruit of this in- 
ward work. In other words, to express the same idea, 
we must practice aymaixov^ {hagiasmon^ holiness^ in all our 
outward conduct, so as to fulfill the commandments of the 
moral code. 

(2.) Another translation may bring out the idea of just- 
ification^ and of the final purpose, expressed in the text 
more prominently, and yet, perhaps, be quite admissible : 

ouru) vuv TiapaaTTiffare rd jxikfj biiihv dovXa rrj dixaioaovvj ere 

dyiaff/iov, SO now present ye your members subservient to 

JUSTIFICATION IN ORDER TO — Or, FOR THE PURPOSE OF — 

holiness. As to this translation, the original, it is seen, 
will justify us in using the word justification. As to the 
translation of the preposition dq, eis, Dr. Robinson, under 
No. 3, letter d, of his definition of it, says that it is used, 
" Of an intent, purpose, aim, end, that is, £:c, final. In 
the sense of U7ito, in order to, or for, that is, for the pur- 
pose of, for the sake of, on account of;" to this he gives 
many proof-passages, and our text is among them, (a) It 
is to be observed that the apostle begins our text, 'A>dp6- ^ 
ruvov Xiyw, I speaJc what is human, in the manner of men, 
in a familiar, ivell-known style, draivn from common life. 
Then he represents the Romans as having been slaves to sin 
before their conversion to Christianity, and as they were 
complete servants to sin at that time, as much so as a 
man would be a slave under a slave-driver, and that, too, 
eiq rr^v ayo;j.iay, for the purpose of iniquity, for the fur- 
therance of the kingdom of Satan, their master, so now 
he exhorts them, having changed Satan as their master 
for Christ, of whom they were free partakers, to be as 
obedient to him, and as faithful in his service, in which 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



407 



case they were serving justification instead of unclean- 
ness and iniquity — these two terms being personified to 
express their masters in their respective spheres of life 
before conversion, and after it. Now, observe that the 
regenerated Romans are commanded to serve justifica- 
tion all the rest of their lives, and not entire sanctijica- 
tion — no mention of such a thing at all. This personifica- 
tion is to be their master hereafter. Why was not entire 
sanctification made the personification ? The word ayiaff- 
ixov^ (hagiasmon,) holiness, absolutely can not mean such a 
work, for the Romans being commanded to always serve 
justification, such a service would be incompatible with the 
higher degree which men suppose to be attainable, (h) The 
external part of religion, strict conformity to the moral 
law, as the proof of regeneration, is the final object of 
the service which the Romans are noAV to render to God. 
The final object is expressed in the one word holiness.'^ 
This is the sense that eiq, (eis,) final, would give the Avord, 
and it would be in accordance with the whole passage; 
for that they are now justified all admif. It is mutually 
agreed that they are also regenerated. And that they 
are now to serve this state of grace hereafter is actually 
what the text says. 

Now, since we have advanced some reasonable thoughts, 
in the former arguments, to prove the sinlessness of regen- 
eration as a state of grace, it is required of our brethren 
that these arguments be set aside fairly, before there is 
any need for us presuming to pass from justification to the 
so-called second degree of grace. And if our arguments 
are correct, as to the sinlessness of the soul when regen- 
erated, and when the preposition here is (eis,) final, how, 
in the sense of the question, is a man to serve this sinless 
state of grace, in order to, or for the jmrpose of entire 
sanctification, if the word we translate holiness means this ? 
The Romans are already dead to sin, as the apostle states 
the case, and entire sanctification can mean no more. 



408 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Why now, at this time, are they commanded to serve just- 
ification in order to a thing akeady in their possession? 
Will a man labor for that which he already hath in order 
to obtain it? The holiness, then, in this case, can mean 
nothing else than what we have stated it to be. 

(3.) Other passages in this same chapter express the 
very idea that is set forth in our text, in such a manner 
as to favor our argument, and yet there is no mention of 
the word aYia<jrj.6c, (hagiasmos,) lioliness — the idea being 
the same in such terms as are unequivocal. Thus the 
eighteenth verse says, " Being then made free from sin, 
ye became the servants of righteousness." Or, following 
the idiom of the Greek more closely, ^e may translate, 
perhaps, thus : But having been made free from sin, ye were 
made servants to justification, [a) Observe that this 
verse stands just before our text, which St. Paul explains 
therein by means of his personification. Therefore, it 
contains the very same doctrine of our text expressed in 
other words ; these words are so plain that we can not 
misunderstand them. The verse in hand contains two 
points. One is regeneration, as the concomitant of just- 
ification, expressed in these words : 'EhuOepwdi-^rsq 8k d-d 
r/^g iimpziaz: But having been jnade free from sin. ISo 
state of grace on earth can be conceived of as expressing 
any more than TN"hat this clause does, as an inward work 
of the soul. The man is free from sin. This act of 
freeing the soul from sin having been done, or completed, 
as the aorist, or past tense, indicates, observe (5) the 
words, idoolwdriTs rjf o'.y.aioGv'^i^ ye ivere made servants to 
JUSTIFICATION, cxpress the fruit of the regeneration men- 
tioned in (a), which fruit is, and implies, that all the rest 
of the man's life, from the hour of justification till death, 
he must serve justification, that is, he must keep the 
moral law to the utmost of his ability, and this obedience 
to the justified relation, as growing out of it, is entire 
sanctification, and it is Christian perfection, both of which, 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



409 



taken as the fruit and proof of the new birth are outward 
parts of the Christian religion. In this sense we think 
they are always used in Scripture, and not as an inward 
work. 

2. Rom. vi, 22: "But now being made free from sin, 
and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto ho- 
liness." We notice here, (a) The word {Icarpon,) 
fruity most likely means, as Mr. Greenfield says, '•'Course 
of life, conduct, actions,^' although Dr. Robinson defines 
it, Profit, advantage, good result.^' In verse 21, all agree 
that this last is the meaning, that is, in a secondary sense, 
but in our text we think Mr. Greenfield has given the 
better signification. He is, also, certainly much better 
supported by use than Dr. Robinson; such as our Lord's 
words — Matt, vii, 16 — "Ye shall know them by their 
[xa^TTwy] fruits." This word is found sixty-six times in the 
Greek Testament, and almost invariably it means the lit- 
eral production of the tree or of plants, or else it is to be 
taken in the tropical sense as indicating the fruits, that is, 
the deeds, the conduct of the human heart as good or bad. 
See Gal. v, 22 ; Eph. v, 9 ; Heb. xii, 11 ; Phil, i, 11 ; 
James iii, 17, 18 ; John xv, 8 ; Luke iii, 8, 9 ; John xv, 4, 
etc. {h) Here, also, we have erV, {eis^ final. The sense 
of the passage is like that of verse 19, and may be stated 
as if it read thus : But having been made free from sin, 
and having been made servants to God, ye have your con- 
duct IN ORDER TO HOLINESS ; ye have your course of life, 
as the fruit of your regeneration, for the purpose of, or 
tending to, or aiming at holiness; that is, the keeping of 
the whole revealed will of God as the test of justification. 
Hence, St. Paul expresses oui- idea exactly when he says, 
"I pray . . . that ye may be sincere and without 
offense till the day of Christ ; [ihr.Xripcafii'Mn xap-iov dtxatoa- 
ovfjq, Having been filled with the fruits of justifica- 
tion]." Phil, i, 9-11. This we take to be the sense of the 

passage before us as a text. We no more regard it as 

35 



410 REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [P^^rt II. 



teaching an inward work of the Holy Spirit, except in 
that sense in which good fruits always teach and imply 
such a work, than we regard keeping the Sabbath day, or 
feedino; the huno;ry and clothinor the naked as internal. 

O CD J O 

3. 1 Cor. i, 30 : " But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, 
who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, 
and sanctification, and redemption." It may here be 
proper to see what the words of this text mean which bear 
the same relation to the meaning of the apostle that the 
word ''•sanctification^^ does. 

(1.) The word wisdom^ ^ seems to be used by a meto- 
nymy of expression to set forth Christ as the author of 
that wisdom which, he elsewhere says, " none of the 
princes of this world knew or, as Dr. Adam Clarke 
says, "as being the author of that evangelical ivisdom 
which far excels the wisdom of the philosopher and the 
scribe ; and even that legal constitution which is called the 
wisdom of the Jews — Deut. iv, 6." 

(2.) The word " righteousness " seems to be used by the 
same rhetorical figure, as Mr. Greenfield says, " For 6 
duaiai^^^ the bestoivcT of forgiveness^ or justification,^' He 
is our justification, because through him we obtain it, as 
the non-imputation of sin, by faith. Regarding him as the 
procuring cause of this blessing, we may again adopt Dr. 
Adam Clarke, who says, Justification, as procuring for us 
that remission of sins, which the law could not give. Gal. 
ii, 21; iii, 21." 

(3.) In like manner is the word sanctification to be un- 
derstood. Christ is our sanctification in the very same 
sense that he is our justification, that is, by a metonymy 
of meaning, as being its Author unto us, in whatsoever 
light we may view it, as to the meaning of the word itself. 
On this point there may be other views than those of Dr. 
Clarke ; for he also afiixes a signification to the word 
sanctification," as if it were an inward work. He says, 
" Wrought in us by the*Holy Spirit." While we are hon- 



Arg. XVni.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



411 



est enough to quote our great author, and to hold him in 
as high estimation as anj of our readers, even where he is 
against us, it may not be improper to say, that in other 
places he says things against his own views of entire sanc- 
tification, as a theory or system in the abstract, that are 
enough, when fairly examined, to neutralize the whole as a 
general theory. For example, see his admission in his 
comment on Rom. vi, 7, which has been quoted before. 
His note on our text stands thus : " As procuring for, and 
working in us, not only an external and relative holiness, 
as was that of the Jews ; but . . . true and internal 
holiness, Eph. iv, 24, wrought in us by the Holy Spirit." 
His proof- passage here, by which he would have us to take 
" sanctification " in the sense of ^''internal holiness,'" as 
found in Eph. iv, 24, Avill by no means sustain him in such 
a sense. For, («) This proof-passage is given in our Cate- 
chism, Question 56, as a proof of regeneration, which we 
would say is correct, (b) The word offtorrjrc, (hosiofeti,) 
holiness, in his proof-text in Eph. iv, 24, is not, as you see, 
the same Greek word on which we build our argument. 
It is defined by the best lexicons we have so as to kill his 
^'internal holiness.'^ Dr. Robinson defines it, Holiness, 
godliness, piehj, careful observance of all duties toward 
God." Thus you see it is an outward holiness instead of 
an inward; for observance of duties toward God implies 
the moral law, in which the devout must walk as the test 
of justifying faith. Mr. Greenfield defines, " Piety, sacred 
observance of all duties toward God, holiness." From 
this we may, perhaps, conclude that the remark about 
" internal holiness," concerning our word, may not stand 
too close an examination. And, taking our text upon the 
whole, it contains sufficient proof, we think, to show that 
the word " sanctification " does not mean internal purity, 
but the fruit of that purity. All admit that the soul is 
regenerated the moment it is justified. It has also been 
shown by abundant proof, that Avhen the soul is born of 



412 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II, 



the Spirit, it is that moment as pure as the Bible any 
where requires it to be, since it is then morally in the 
"image" of Grod. We have also quoted Dr. Adam Clarke 
on Rom. vi, 7, where the strength of the apostle's words, 
concerning those merely justified and regenerated, forces 
the Doctor to acknowledge that such persons were also 
" wliolly sanctified unto GodJ' Now, if Christ became our 
"righteousness," that is, justification, and if this and re- 
generation take place at the same moment, and the two 
together make the Romans " wholly sanctified unto God," 
where is the use of the apostle adding " sanctification," as 
another word to express the same " internal holiness 
Would not this be the merest verbiage? Does the ety- 
mology or the usus loqiiendi of our word ayia(Tfj.6^, JiagicLsmos, 
admit of such a sense? We think not. Should we offer 
our own views of this text by way of translation, observ- 
ing also the punctuation, namely, a comma (,) after dsod, 
God, and none between the other words following, we 
would give it thus : oq kysWjdri ijixv^ aofia aizo Oeoo^ duaioffu'^f) 
re xaX ayiaffiio-z y.ai d-oXurpaxnq, wJlO became to US wisdom 
from God, (namely) hotli justification (including regener- 
ation) and holiness, (a consecration to God consisting in 
keeping all his commandments, as the outward duty of 
man, and as the fruit of the inward grace just mentioned,) 
and redemption, (that is, eternal redemption, Heb. ix, 12, 
" Having obtained eternal redemption for us.") We can 
not well see how any objection can exist against this view, 
for in it we maintain consistency in the reasonable and 
practical order of words. You observe that we make the 
word " tuisdom " generic, that is, including in it the other 
points of evangelical wisdom and doctrine. So the apos- 
tle speaks of experimental rehgion, including all the doc- 
trine and minor points in the one word, " wisdom,^^ in the 
next chapter, which may be fairly regarded as a context 
to this text. "We speak the wisdom of God in a mys- 
tery ;" that is, the wisdom of God formerly in a mystery, 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



413 



consisting in the deep things of experimental religion, 
known only to true believers. It is obvious, therefore, 
that by the one word " wisdom," in this text, St. Paul 
meant all the Gospel. So the word is elsewhere used: 
''But the WISDOM that is from above is first pure," etc. 
James iii, 17. Likewise all the Gospel is contained in 
justification and regeneration, with their fruit, holiness, or 
sanctification of life, as to the Divine law, and eternal 
redemption or deliverance from all the power of sin in 
the eternal heaven of God's people. See how near this 
passage comes to the text already considered in Rom. vi, 
22. Having been made free from sin, (by justification 
and regeneration,) ayid having become servants to God, (by 
walking in the Divine law as the sign of the inward work,) 
ye have your fruit (conduct) unto (in order to) holiness, 
and the end everlasting life. Three points in both these 
texts agree exactly; namely, the inward work, its fruit, 
and eternal reward in heaven. It seems, therefore, very 
reasonable that the word " sanctification," in our text, 
should be taken in the sense of outward obedience to the 
moral requirements of Christianity, and not in the sense 
of inward purity. The word, no doubt, means purity; but 
then the whole family to which it belongs gives the idea, 
respectively, of external pui'ity , ceremonial acceptability with 
God, legal perfection; while the inward idea is contrary to 
the general use of the word, and remains to be proved. 

4. Heb. xii, 14: "Follow peace with all men, and holi- 
ness, without which no man shall see the Lord." 
. We have no idea that the word " holiness," dytafffiuv^ 
here, means an inward work. It bears the same relation 
to the sentence that the word " peace " does. The. word 
"follow," diwxzrs^ occurs forty-four times in the New Test- 
ament, thirty-one of w^hich it is translated by our English 
verb persecute, under the idea of following with evil intent. 
Hence, in a tropical sense, it means to follotv earnestly, or 
pursue what is to be attained unto by the faithful Chris- 



414 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



tian. The apostle coiiimands the Hebrews to pursue peace 
with all men, as a vile person would folloiv, pursue, oi 
persecute another. As he says of the Christians, " I per- 
secuted them even unto strange cities," Acts xxvi, 11. 
The meaning of the rest of the clause being fixed by the 
fact that "holiness" is also the direct object of the verb 
" follow," shows that the sentence must be completed 
accordingly. The meaning is, Folloiv peace witli all 
(men), and (follow) lioliness, etc. Dr. Adam Clarke un- 
derstands our word to signify an outward work. Respect- 
ing it, he says, " That state of continual sanctification, 
that life of imrity and detacliment from the world and all 
its lusts ; without vhich detachment and sanctity no man 
shall see the Lord.'^ Such is the opinion of one who 
favors entire sanctification, as such, making the word to 
refer to an outivard work. Perhaps no one can give a bet- 
ter exposition of the text in as few words. This agrees, 
also, with the context, where an inward sense will not; for 
this fourteenth verse does not complete the meaning of 
the apostle, nor is it complete till we come to the end of 
the sixteenth verse. After our text, he goes on with his 
exhortation, "Looking diligently lest any fail of the grace 
of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble 
you, and thereby many be defiled ; lest there be any for- 
nicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel 
of meat sold his birthright." All this about "bitterness 
springing up " in society, and about a " fornicator," 
refers us to the keeping of the moral law. They were 
converted Jews chiefly to whom this Epistle to the He- 
brews was sent, and this keeping of the law must be " ho- 
liness," as the fruit of their saved state. The Greek 
scholar, too, is well aware that the verb ' E-i<7y.o-oovTsq^ 
{episkopountes^ " looking diligently," is in the participial 
mode, and is the enlarging of the idea expressed in the 
phrase follow holiness, that the former is a species of 
piety of which the latter is the genus. Therefore, the 



Arg. XVIll.i PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



415 



"holiness" is opposed to the external things which are 
to be avoided by " looking diligently," lest they come 
upon us. 

Professor Moses Stuart is just to the point on this text. 
He says, " ''Ayiaaixov^ holiness, that is, a pious, upright life, 
or a life of consecration to God." This passage is quoted 
in Rev. Richard Watson's Theological Dictionary, Article 
Sanctification, as a proof-text of complete sanctity as 
an imvard Avork, and, as we understand him, in proof of 
a work additional to regeneration. The last part of that 
definition, with our text annexed as proof, stands thus in 
his Dictionary. " Sanctification in this world must be com- 
plete; the whole nature must be sanctified, all sin must 
be utterly abolished, or the soul can never be admitted 
into the glorious presence of God, Heb. xii, 14." The 
words which we put in capitals will give the internal idea 
to his application of it. Dr. Peck, also, on page thirty- 
seven of his work on Perfection, abridged edition, quotes 
these words of Mr. Watson, and sanctions them in his 
inward sense of the term. Now, such writers have neither 
Dr. Clarke, Professor Stuart, nor Dr. Thomas Coke, on 
their side, nor do we think Mr. Wesley, since he says, 
" The not following after holiness is the direct way to 
fall into sin of every kind." Nor, indeed, do they seem 
to have sound criticism to favor them. Those who read 
Mr. Benson on this word, and its kindred which we have 
already examined, would profit much to read him in con- 
nection with critical authors. In view of the fact that 
there is such a manifest disagreement among our authors 
on the sense of this word, and those of the same root, as 
to the sense being either conceived of as external holiness, 
or as internal, will not the reader be so kind as to regard 
our humble efibrts to fully explain this difficult question, 
as of great necessity, and as something in systematic 
divinity loudly called for by every inquiring mind? If 
the reader is partially sanguine for what these great and 



416 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



good men have written, does he presume to believe that 
they are all correct on this word? When Dr. Clarke 
makes it external holiness, and Mr. Watson and Dr. Peck 
internal, are they all correct ? Let us search for the truth 
and it shall make us free. 

5. 1 Tim. ii, 15 : " She shall be saved in child-bearing, 
if they continue in faith and charity, and holiness, [ayi- 
aff/jM,'] with sobriety." As this word is here classed with 
continuance in faith, chastity, and sohriettf, all which, from 
their classification, most likely we may regard as outward 
acts and duties of Christianity, so we take our word "ho- 
liness " to mean the same. This, however, not being held 
as a proof-text by our brethren who may differ from us, 
no further argument seems to be required. 

6. 2 Thess. ii, 13 : " God hath from the beginning 
chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the 
Spirit, and belief of the truth." 

In connection with this we will take : 

7. 1 Pet. i, 2 : " Elect according to the foreknowledge 
of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, 
unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 
Christ." With these we will also present another passage, 
not that aytafj/j/jg, Jiagiasmos, is found in it, but because 
it is a parallel text, containing the same doctrines, namely, 
Eph. i, 4, " According as he hath chosen us in him, before 
the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and 
without blame before him in love." We think there are 
some strong objections to dytaffp^w, hagiasmo, in the former 
two passages, being interpreted to mean an inward work 
of the Spirit, which we will try to point out. 

(1.) There are four points of analogy Avhich will prove 
these three texts to be parallel : First. As to the one in 
Thessalonians, we observe (a) the fact: "Hath chosen." 
(b) The time : " From the beginning." (c) The means : 

ayw.aij.vj, " Through sanctification of the Spirit." ((i) The 
md: eiq ffwTTjptav^ "Unto salvation," that is, IN order to, 



Aug. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



417 



FOR THE PURPOSE OF Salvation. Second, xis to the text 
in Peter, we observe the same points in substance, (a) 
The fact) that he chose them, implied in the word " elect." 
(6) The time, expressed in the phrase " according to the 
foreknowledge of God," which implies the same as the 
phrase " from the beginning," used in Thessalonians. 
(c) The means: h dyca(T/j.w, "Through sanctification of the 
Spirit." (d) The end in view : st:; uTraxurjv xai pa>TCfTrj.d'^, 
" Unto obedience," etc.; that is, IN order to, for the pur- 
pose OF obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ. 
Third. As it respects the text in Ephesians, we notice 
(a) The fact: "He hath chosen." {b) The time of the 
act: "Before the foundation of the world." (c) The 
means through which the choice was made : iv aura), " In 
him," that is, through him, as Mr. Wesley also translates 
it. (d) The final end of the choice : " That we should be 
holy," etc., which, in sense, will agree with the final end 
as given by the other two texts. We see from these four 
points of analogy, that these three texts are one and the 
same in doctrine, beyond even the shadow of a doubt. 
Now, our reason naturally assumes, that what is taught 
in any one of the given points of analogy in one of these 
passages, must be so interpreted as to agree with the 
corresponding point in the other two. 

(2.) The choice which God made, or the determination 
to choose, which existed in the Divine mind, " from the 
beginning," "before the foundation of the world," does 
not imply personal salvation ; for the Almighty, at the 
time designated, did a certain act, expressed by the phrase 
" hath chosen." And if this declaration has any thing in 
it whatever that would necessarily imply or mean personal 
salvation, it must be according to received facts in theol- 
ogy ; for when God made the choice, he either chose all 
men or a part only of mankind, so that if the choice im- 
plies personal salvation on the first alternative, then Uni- 
versalism is true ; if on the second, then Calvinism is true. 



418 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Moreover, the act of choosing was all on the part of God 
as the Actor in the case. Man had nothing to do with it, 
as a separate act from every other consideration, since it 
was virtually completed in the Divine mind and purpose 
" before the foundation of the world," and ^' according to 
foreknowledge." Mr. Wesley very wisely says, "Elec- 
tion, in the Scripture sense, is God's doing any thing that 
our merit or power have no part in."^ But personal 
salvation implies and requires for its accomphshment 
personal acts and duties. Therefore, the act of choosing 
wholly on God's part Avas not an act by which he person- 
ally saved, by any means. Now, since the means by 
which the Almighty made the choice, or elected, was 
"through sanctification of the Spirit," and since that act 
was not one by which he personally saved, the means 
whereby it was done can not be construed to signify a 
personal and internal act of the Holy Spu'it. 

(3.) The choice — that is, the act of choosing — being a 
work of God himself, wholly independent of man as an 
agent, must be interpreted accordingly. The popular 
opinion seems to be that " sanctification of the Spirit " 
means the inward work whereby the soul is cleansed, and 
that the choice which God made was conditional — that he 
chose fi'om the foundation of the world those whom he 
thus sanctified on the condition of their faith in Christ. 
This we understand to be the true Arminian view. Ex- 
cepting the inivard sanctification, we, of com'se, have no 
objection, since it removes the unreasonable notion of 
Calvin, which made the choice of a few merely arhitrary. 
But we presume that these three parallel passages, if we 
make the sanctification internal, will not admit this inter- 
pretation in all fairness. Against such a sanctity we now 
bring to bear the words of the texts. 

(a) Our fii'st objection is that it reverses the order of 
Divine grace. If sanctification means an inward work, 

* Xote on 1 Peter i, 2. 



arg. xyiii.] perfection and sanctification. 



410 



and if " through sanctification of the Spirit " indicates the 
manlier or means by which God made the choice, as we 
really understand the text to say, then we can not see 
why the phrase " and belief of the truth is added ; for, 
according to the order, on this internal sense of the word 
" sanctification," we have them sanctified before they be- 
lieve. This looks like a careless way of speaking on the 
part of the apostle, if this view be taken of our impend- 
ing word. 

ih) It is presumed, further, that if they had received 
the internal sanctification of the Spirit, such would have 
been a salvation. Hence, salvation would then be the 
means by which God chose them; but since the texts 
have £^<?, (eis,) final, and may be translated unto, in order 
to^ or for the purpose of salvation, the meaning would be 
the same as if it read thus : " God hath chosen you 
through the salvation of the Spirit unto or in order to 
salvation, thereby making ' salvation,' according to the 
sense, both the means and the filial end of the action of 
the verb ' hath chosen.' " This, to us, does not look clear, 
strong, or critical. 

(c) The text in Peter says that the final end of God's 
choice was uyito, in order to, or for the purpose of " obe- 
dience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ." But the 
means of the choice is through sanctification of the 
Spirit;" and since the "obedience" to God must precede, 
both as to time and order, the inward work of God, in 
part, at least, as repentance, prayer, and faith do, it seems 
as if our brethren, who hold to inward sanctification, 
must have the Church sanctified before they obey, while 
their own creed is just the reverse. Again, the phrase 
" sprinkling of the blood of Christ" means the very 
process by which the soul is made pure. It refers to us 
drawing nigh to heaven itself by faith, and through con- 
fidence in the merits of Christ's blood, who is our paschal 
Lamb, receiving the sprinkling of the blood, " which 



420 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



cleanseth us from all sin" — the antitype of the blood of 
the lamb, wliich typically cleansed ancient Israel. Since 
this sprinkling is another final object of God's choice, and 
since what is supposed to be the inward sanctification 
must mean the same thing, how is it that such inward 
sanctification is made the means in order to or for the 
purpose of an act which is just the same ? Is this clear ? 
Is it really true that an inward sanctification, as the 
means, must take place in order to the sprinkling as the 
final end? 

{d) The final end proposed, in the text to the Ephe- 
sians, is, that we should be ayiooq, (hagious,) holy, etc. ; 
that is, have a pure ceremonial Church relation, keeping 
the moral law as the fruit of inward grace. In this 
respect the text in Ephesians just agrees with the word 
obedience," found in the passage in Peter, thereby mak- 
ing our theory consistent with our interpretation of dyto^j 
(hagios,) holy, as already given. How accurate is Divine 
inspiration, when its terms are exactly understood ! 

(4.) We hold as a difi'erent view of the phrase sanc- 
tification of the Spirit," on account of the difiiculties 
appearing to attend it, that it signifies something like the 
sanction of the Spirit. It means the abstract of the He- 
brew Pi' HEL of the verb kadhash, where it sig- 
nifies to hold sacred, to regard and treat as holy, to 
pronounce holy. The reader may easily apprehend our 
meaning. He may also see that it is a little difficult to 
express precisely our idea, from a want of some conve- 
nient word as the exact abstract signification of the verb. 
The phrase a regarding as holy may also convey our 
thought. We will now present a few arguments to sus- 
tain this view of the two passages before us, where 
ayiaffiMoq, sanctificatiou,^^ is found. 

{a) It is according to etymology. We have already 
shown that the noun in question, etymologically, must 
express the abstract idea of the verb from which it is 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



421 



derived. This verbal root we have argued to be the same 
as the Hebrew throughout. We have shown that to regard 
and treat as Jioly, or to pronounce holy, is its sense in 
Rom. XV, 16. The Greek scholar is aware that nouns 
which express the abstract meaning of their respective 
roots generally express all the several abstract shades of 
signification contained in their roots. Almost any similar 
verb and noun will illustrate this. Thus the verb xaOa- 
pt^oj, katJiarizo, means, severally, we may say,: First. To 
cleanse, in the sense of removing filth : Ye make clean 
the outside of the cup," etc. Matt, xxiii, 25. Corre- 
sponding to this meaning we have the abstract noun 
xaOaptaiioq, (JcathaiHsmos,) a cleayising : " After the manner 
of the PURIFYINQ of the Jews." John ii, 6. Second. 
The verb means to cleanse morally : The blood of Jesus 
Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John i, 7. 
Corresponding is the abstract noun in the moral sense 
also : " Hath forgotten that he was purged from his old 
sins." 2 Peter i, 9. Verbally : Having received forget- 
fulness of the cleansing from his old sins. Third. The 
verb means to cleanse ceremonially : " What God hath 
cleansed, that call not thou common." Acts x, 15. To 
this, likewise, the noun agrees abstractedly : " When he 
had by himself purged our sins." Heb. i, 3. Verbally : 
A CLEANSING having made of the sins of us. The word 
I^a-Ti(7!x6q, (baptismos,) baptism, ivashing, is a good illustra- 
tion, also, of the impending question. It occurs four 
times in the New Testament : once it is rendered by the 
former definition — Heb. vi, 2 — and three times by the 
latter. Mark vii, 4, 8; Heb. ix, 10. Why has it these 
two meanings ? No doubt because its root ^a-ri^w, hap)- 
tizo, which is found in the New Testament eighty times, 
is Englished seventy-eight times by our word baptize, and 
twice by the word wash. Mark vii, 4, and Luke xi, 88, 
These exactly parallel cases show that we may fairly and 
reasonably expect to find the noun, on which we build our 



422 



EEVIETT OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



argument, in the very sense that will express the abstract 
of the root, especially when we find that sense of the root 
in the Hebrew and also in the Xew Testament, the ab- 
stract of which we have above stated as being in the 
noun. While the signification which we thus give the 
derivative is authorized by etymology and analogy, as we 
have shown, the sense of an inward sanetijication is un- 
sanctioned by the former, and hence against the latter. 

{h) Our interpretation will give a good theological 
sense to the whole three passages that we compare to- 
gether, in such a manner as to make the order of the 
Gospel system appear correct. 

(c) There will be a sensible agreement in the three 
texts before us, as to the four points of analogy men- 
tioned in them. We will now apply our view of the 
word in question to the passages, and see how plain and 
regular they will all appear. 2 Thess. ii, 13, will read as 
to sense, thus : " God hath from the beginning chosen 
you to salvation, through the Spirit's mnction of you as 
being ceremonially clean, and belief of the truth." Or 
thus : God hath from the beginning chosen you to sal- 
vation [iv a.Y>.aG<)M -'^tvfj.a-(j{\ through the Spirits regard- 
ing you as ceremonially fit for the privileges of the Gospel, 
and belief of the truth." The sense of 1 Peter i, 2, may 
be stated thus : Elect according to the foreknowledge of 
God the Father \_b^ dyiacr/xaj] through the sanction of the 
Spirit [that the Son made an expiation for you] unto 
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 
We may now further justify this view of the word by the 
fact that the corresponding passage in Ephesians has 
£> aurw, through him — Christ. The passage would read, 
in sense, thus : According as he hath chosen us through 
Christ, before the foundation of the world." Now, in 
what sense are we to take the phrase through Christ ? 
Evidently as our Redeemer, in whom we are to believe, 
and thus be conditionally chosen, and saved. Mr. Wesley 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



423 



is certainly clear and correct, when on the words, as he 
hath chosen^ he says, " Both Jews and Gentiles, whom he 
foreknew as believing in Christ. 1 Peter i, 2." Here, 
then, is the means by which God chose us ; namely, 
by our faith in the redemption which his Son wrought 
out for us. The Holy Ghost sanctioned this redemption; 
he acquiesced in it; he was pleased with it, as much so 
as the Father and the Son. Hence the idea is the same 
if we translate Peter thus : " Elect according to the fore- 
knowledge of God the Father, [that the Christians would 
be the believers in his Son,] through the acquiescence of 
the Spirit, [to the plan of salvation wrought out by the 
Son,] unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 
Christ." 

(d) There are two other considerations which make our 
position seem very reasonable : First. Certain proof-pas- , 
sages to this very effect. Heb. ix, 8 : " The Holy Ghost this 
signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet 
made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet stand- 
ing." This text distinctly teaches that the great work 
of man's redemption was under the omniscient gaze of the 
Holy Spirit, while the Jewish economy was yet standing; 
that is, the Spirit did not at that time sanction, regard, or 
recognize man's redemption as complete. Just the con- 
verse of what he did after the atonement by the Son had 
been made ; for, as before said, he then " signified that 
the way into the holiest of all was" really "made mani- 
fest." The Spirit took special cognizance of this work. 
Observe, also, verse fourteenth, which says that Christ 

offered himself — dia Tlvebixaroq alcj^Aou — THROUGH THE ETER- 
NAL Spirit. What do these words mean? What part 
in the great work of redemption did the Holy Spirit per- 
form, in such a sense as that the Son offered himself 
THROUGH that Spirit? We think that his part consisted 
in agreement or acquiescence thereto with the Father and 
the Son. This seems to be Mr. Wesley's idea. He says, 



424 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION 



[Part II. 



"The work of redemption being the work of the whole 
Trinity, neither is the second person alone concerned, 
even in the amazing condescension that was needful to 
complete it." Dr. Adam Clarke says, "In this great work 
of human redemption, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Spii'it were continually employed. . . . The Holy 
Spirit, with the eternal Logos, and the Almighty Father, 
equally concurred in offering up the sacrifice of the hu- 
man nature of Christ, in order to make an atonement for 
the sin of the world." Observe, here, the Doctor prop- 
erly says the Godhead "equally coxcurred." This 
brings us to notice, second, the analogy that must reason- 
ably' be expected in the Spirit's acquiescence in the atone- 
ment. The Godhead is one in nature. " These three 
are one." So are they in act. The first chapter in the 
Bible attributes creation to the Father. St. Paul, speak- 
ing of the Son, says, "By him were all things created." 
Col. i, 16. The same work is attributed to the Holy 
Spirit. Says Job, " The Spirit of God hath made me, 
and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." 
Job xxxiii, 4. The preservation of all things is alike, ac- 
cording to Scripture, the work of each person in the ever- 
blessed Trinity. Now, it is but in analogy that we should 
find them constantly participating in the great work of 
man's redemption, as well as his creation. Hence, at the 
baptism of our Lord the whole Trinity was present, 
and expressed their agreement in the Divinity of the 
Son. While the voice of the Father acknowledges his 
well-beloved Son, in whom he is well-pleased, the Spirit 
like a dove comes down upon him. See the unity in 
action, in agreement. " These thi*ee agree in one." At 
the first public ministration of our Lord the Holy Spirit 
directs in the fulfillment of the inspu-ed prediction : " The 
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath axointed 
me to preach the Gospel." Luke iv, 18. I speak as a man 
when I say that the Holy Spirit ivatched and waited the 



Aeg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



425 



coming in of the Christian dispensation, to attest the 
divinity of our blessed Lord and Savior, to acquiesce in 
an agreement to the saying, "It is finished," and to pro- 
claim in his ascension, " Be ye lifted up, ye everlasting 
doors ; and the King of glory shall come in." Psa. 
xxiv, 7. 

(e) The objector may now say that ay taff/ioq, hagiasmos, 
is not defined by any lexicon as we have done. We an- 
swer : First. The view we give makes a more consistent 
theology. Second. The etymology of the word not only 
allows it, but, in view of similar cases, strongly- suggests 
it, since its root often means to treat as holy, etc. Third. 
Lexicographers are like all other men — mortal. Fourth. 
Take any lexicon that will give this word and its root 
an internal, moral meaning and application, and perhaps 
no man can remove the difiiculties in which such a lexicon 
will involve him. Fifth. To obtain the sense from the 
context, the scope, from parallel passages and from ety- 
mology, may be safer than from a lexicon, especially in 
case of a word of such extensive Scriptural use as this 
and its kindred. Sixth. How do lexicographers get, them- 
selves, their own meanings ? Do they not always refer us 
to the place where the word is used in some author, as a 
proof of the word in question with them, signifying in 
that place just what they say it does, expecting us to be 
governed by the sense that it will make, and by the con- 
text, etc.? If we examine the best lexicons we can find, 
on a given word, with their references to the same passage 
where it is used, both in the New Testament and in pro- 
fane authors, we find a very great disagreement in some 
instances. Is not this enough to convince us that their 
definitions are impeachable? Must man in every instance 
make the mere opinion of some one else, mortal like him- 
self, the assignee of the God-given rights of his own 
intellect? Seventh. Granting, for argument's sake, that 

these two texts before us teach all that sanctificationists ask , 

36 



426 



F.EA'IEW or WESLEYAX PERFECTIO^■. [Part II. 



we are compelled to say that we are sorry for their theory 
that it is liable to so many seemingly strong objections, 
as we may have suggested. We would prefer a theory 
of salvation free from fair objection in every particular. 
TTe would blush to bring an objection against Divine 
revelation, the divinity of our blessed Savior, the atone- 
ment, justification by faith in that atonement, regenera- 
tion, the witness of the Spiiit, growth in grace, or any 
other tenable part of Christian theology; but how it is 
that we can so conscientiously find ground for fair objec- 
tion against what is called entire sanctification, as a 
theory, we can not tell on any other ground than that it 
has no existence in the Bible. We conclude, therefore, 
all things considered on these two texts, let the world 
think of our opinion what it may, that it is more reason- 
able and Scriptural than the one we oppose. The Bible 
has proceeded fi'om God, and, consequently, must teach a 
consistent doctrine. Our demgn is a pure one ; namely, 
not to underrate or discard any doctrine of Divine revela- 
tion, but to try to make all plain, consistent, and practical 
for the benefit of man and the honor and glory of its 
Author. 

8, 9, 10. 1 Thess. iv, 3, 4, 7: '''For this is the will of 
God, even yom- sanctification, \&fiaff!i6z, liagiasmos^ that 
ye should abstain from fornication,'' etc. In this one 
passage our word is found thi-ee times. These complete 
the ten places where it occui's in the Xew Testament. 
We hold that here it means an outward sanctification or 
holiness, as opposed to the violation of the moral law, 
particular parts of which law he who reads this chapter 
to the seventh verse will see mentioned. The passage 
can not be held in the sense of teaching inward purity, 
nor can the word in question be here so interpreted, as 
some maintain, unless criticism and accuracy be wholly 
laid aside. Several points are necessary to be considered, 
as to our text, in order to its fair exposition. 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



427 



(1.) The scope of the passage deserves notice. The 
scope of a given portion of Scripture has been ^vell de- 
fined, " A consideration of the scope, or design which the 
inspired author of any of the books of Scripture had in 
view, essentially facilitates the study of the Bible ; because, 
as every writer had some design in view, it is natural to 
conclude that he would express himself in terms adapted 
to his purpose. To be acquainted with the scope, there- 
fore, is to understand the chief part of the book. The 
scope of an author is either general or special; by the 
former, we understand the design which he proposed to 
himself in writing his book; by the latter, we mean that 
design which he had in view, when writing particular sec- 
tions, or even smaller portions of his book or treatise."* 
The apostle Paul first preached Christianity in Thessa- 
lonica, A. D. 50. The Epistle containing our text w^as 
written, as is believed, in the year 52. Mr. Horne says — 
page 332 — that St. Paul ''wrote this Epistle to confirm 
them in that faith, and to animate them to a holy conversa- 
tion, becoming the dignity of their high and holy calling.^'' 
This is precisely so. If we examine the Epistle itself, 
we learn from it that when the apostle preached to them, 
by word of mouth, he taught them the very sentiments of 
this quotation from Mr. Horne. He says — chap, ii, 11 — 
"As ye know how we exhorted, and comforted, and 
charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, 
[when we preached to you,] that ye ivould ivalk ivorthy of 
God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. So 
in chap, iii, ver. 12, he exhorts to the same efi'ect, ''And 
the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one 
toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward 
you.'*' Then he begins the fourth chapter, the one we 
are now considering, and immediately connected with our 
text, and continues to urge the same doctrine of outward 
holiness and conformity to the will of God, thus keeping 

* Home's Introduction to the Study of the Bible, Abridged, p. 115. 



428 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



up the scope of the Epistle all through. ''Furthermore 
then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord 
Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to 
walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and 
more." Does the sentiment of this verse set forth internal 
religion — internal purity ? Not in the least, except so far 
as the outward conformity to the Divine will, which it 
teaches, is the sign and fruit of inward grace. It teaches 
the Thessalonians, as persons already i^egenerated in hearty 
how they " ought to walk," as the proof of that regenera- 
tion. Now, the argument to be founded on this chapter lies 
mainly between the third and seventh verses inclusively. 

In these verses the apostle still presses his exhortation 
most pointedly, not speaking of love in the abstract a? 
formerly, but now he begins to touch the very points 
wherein this great branch, or rather sum, of Christian 
deportment consists, as the ninth and twelfth verses in 
elusive will more plainly show, which, like the other part? 
of the context and scope, treat, of " brotherly love "- — the 
absorbing theme of the apostle. For in the ninth verse 
he uses the phrase " brotherly love," corresponding to the 
words "abounding in love toward one another" in the 
twelfth of the preceding chapter. In the tenth verse he 
says, " That ye increase more and more," corresponding 
to the first verse where he says, " So ye would abound 
more and more." In verse 12 he says, " That ye may 
walk honestly toward them that are Avithout ;" correspond- 
ing to this in verse 1, he says, " How ye ought to walk." 
Concerning, therefore, the scope of this passage, we learn 
two things. First. That the scope itself is about " broth- 
erly love," to be manifested by " how ye ought to walk," 
"love one another," etc.; or, as Mr. Horne says, "To 
confirm them in that faith, and to animate them to a holy 
conversation, becoming the dignity of their high and holy 
calling." Second. That in the scope of the passage, both 
before and after the verses containing the word ayiaajxoq, 



Am. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



429 



hagiasmos, about which the argument is, the exhortation 
to brotherly love is still to be found, as manifested in out- 
ward life and conduct. Now, to suppose that the apostle 
interrupted his regular discourse with the doctrine of 
inward purity, greater, too, than regeneration, that he thus 
departed from the scope, is too improbable to credit. Such 
is the improbability of the word " sanctification " in the 
third verse meaning an inward work. He was not speak- 
ing of grace within, but of its sign. Leaving the scope, 
we will go on to consider, 

(2.) That a consistency of translation will contribute 
much to a correct understanding of our text. The word 
dyiaff/ioq, liagiasjiios, is translated in verse 3 by the word 
" sanctification," in verse 4 in like manner ; but in verse 
7 by the word " holiness." Now, ayiaapM, hagiasmos, we 
think, ought to be rendered, as to these three places at 
least, if not every-where, by the one word holiness. Its 
etymology and relationship with those other words which 
have been treated of, the one precise sense which it has 
in these three verses, and, in each, its connection with the 
same subject and scope seem to require this. We are not 
particularly tenacious whether we translate by the one 
meaning or the other ; we would, however, prefer to use 
holiness in every one of the three places where it is found 
in this chapter. Nevertheless, the word " sanctification," 
if properly understood, will convey the correct idea. It 
is consistency in translation that we advocate, when such 
can be had, and when it seems best adapted to the sense. 
A man may be a sound scholar, so far as it relates to the 
syntax of a language, and yet he may not translate with 
that regularity and exactness, as to the selection of words, 
that the passage, considering its context and scope, may 
demand, which things are theological and not philological 
in their bearing" on the word to be selected, except we 
consider terms etymologically. How we can, in view of 
the facts in the case, sanction the use of two words when 



430 



KEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



translating one, in the same passage, where it means the 
same thing in every instance, is, at least, contrary to our 
own views of accuracy. Such we deem not unlikely to 
confuse the English reader. Whereas, if our word be 
translated by the word holiness, in the two places where it 
is translated " sanctification " — ''holiness" and "unclean- 
ness" in verse 7 being opposed, the one to the other — all 
will appear, perhaps, in a plainer manner. We presume 
the passage would never have led so many to the suppo- 
sition that it teaches directly inward purity by the word 
dycafffiuq, hagiasmos^ had a uniformity of its translation 
been observed. Therefore, since God commanded the 
children of Israel, saying, " Ye shall be holy," Lev. xix, 
2 ; since the word "holy" in the Septuagint is &f'toi, hagioi, 
the root of ayid^u), liagiazo, the verb whence this word 
ijiaGiJ-oq, hagiasmos, comes ; since in Leviticus it is used in 
the same chapter with a context which says — verse 13 — 
"Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor," just as the con- 
text of our word oyLaaij.uq, (Jiagiasmos,) holiness, as found 
in verse 6 of the passage in question says, "That no man 
go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter;" since 
in Leviticus the adjective is " holy," and not sanctus, re- 
ferrino; to the outward conduct, as all the context there 
Avill show, we hold that consistency somewhat strongly re- 
quires that the word should be translated " holiness," as in 
verse 7. But as some may regard this as an unnecessary 
"play upon words," let it be granted, to satisfy the most 
fastidious, that the word means sanctification, and that it 
should be so translated, since it is not sound but sense 
that we inquire after, the true signification, the constructio 
ad sensum, in either case must be the same, namely, an 
OUTWARD HOLINESS, or sanctification, or consecration of 
one's self in conformity to the will — that is, the moral 
law — of God, as the manifestation of iniuard purity ob- 
tained in the vioment of regeneration. 

(3.) The word dyiafffxdq, {hagiasmos,) " sanctification," in 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



431 



verse 3, is to be taken in a generic sense. That we may 
be clearly understood in using the expression " generic 
sense/' by the most humble reader, we will explain it. 

Genus implies the property or properties which different 
species possess in common. Thus the property of walk- 
ing on four feet is the foundation of the genus quadruped, 
which applies to horse, lion, dog, elephant, and many other 
species."^ Now, aytaaixuq, " sanctification," in verse 3, is 
to be interpreted, also, in a generic sense, as the word 
"quadruped" in the above example. It is a generic, out- 
ward, form of Christianity, having included in it several 
specific forms. These specific forms are distinctly men- 
tioned by the apostle as soon as he utters the generic 
word d-ycaff/xoq, hagiasmos, " sanctification." They consist, 
in the Greek, in the several infinitive clauses, introduced by 
the conjunction " that," in our translation. The first of these 
specific commands pertaining to outward holiness, coming 
under the generic expression, " This is the will of God, 
even your sanctification," is a command forbidding forni- 
cation: "That ye should abstain from fornication." The 
second specific charge is, "That every one of you should 
know how to possess his vesself in sanctification \_h dyi- 
afftjM, en hagiasmo, holiness'] and honor." That is, that 
every one of you should know how to possess his oivn wife 
in holiness and honor, as opposed to committing fornica- 
tion with another, as he says — 1 Cor. vii, 2 — "To avoid 
fornication, let every man have his own wife." He fur- 

* Hedge's Logic, p. 36. 

'^'Zk^vo^, {^keuos,) vessel, may mean either one's body or his xoife. Mr. 
Benson takes rather the former view, although he admits both. Dr. Adam 
Clarke is also undecided ; and 2 Cor. iv, 7, would likely support Mr. Ben- 
son, while Dr. Clarke rather inclines to the other view. This latter opin- 
ion is taken by Greenfield, Dr. Robinson, and others. It is likely the more 
correct, being supported by 1 Pet. iii, 7, and 1 Cor. vii, 2. Either view, 
however, supports our argument. As Dr. Adam Clarke says, " The general 
sense is plain ; ]mrity and continency are most obviously intended, whether 
the word be understood as referring to the wife or the hmband, as the fol- 
lowing verse sufficiently proves." 



432 REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



ther explains the same idea in these words, "Not in the 
lust of concupiscence, [TzdOec inidu/Maq, passion of lust,'] 
even as the Gentiles which know not God." The third 
specific command is, "That no man go beyond and de- 
fraud his brother in any matter." He gives two reasons 
against such conduct : First, " Because that the Lord is 
the avenger of all such;" second, to mark the sense by 
a strong contrast, "Eor God hath not called us unto un- 
cleanness, [in the sense of fornication, fraud, etc.,] but 
unto holiness, [_dyca<T/j.w, hagiasmo\^^ The fourth specifi- 
cation is concerning "brotherly love." He says, "As 
touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto 
you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one 
another. And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren 
which are in all Macedonia ; but we beseech you breth- 
ren, that ye increase more and more." 

Now, we plainly see from these four specific commands, 
all of which are outivard, and embrace love^ both toward 
God and men, as outward acts, and as the sum of the 
whole moral law, that the apostle was inculcating the ob- 
servance of that law as the fruit of the new birth. A 
regenerated heart and a pure heart are the same. So he 
says to Timothy, " The end \_seope, principal ohjectl of the 
commandment [the whole revealed ivord of God'\ is charity, 
[aydTzrj, love,'] out of a pure heart, and of a good con- 
science, and of faith unfeigned." Since the four specific 
commands are all outivard parts and duties of Christian- 
ity, it is self-evident that the generic word ayLaaiwq^ \hag- 
iosmos^ " sanctification," in verse 3, must also be out- 
ward; for the species must be contained in the genus. 
We can not maintain the species having certain " prop- 
erty or properties " " in common," and at the same time 
change the genus. The genus " sanctification," in verse 
3, has a certain " property " " in common " with the four 
specific commands above pointed out, which "property," 
or rather " properties," are, First. Externality. Second. 



Arg. XVIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



433 



They are the fruit of regeneration ; for since we can not 
Bay that the four specific commands are internal, as to 
their theological character, and that they are not the fruit • 
of regeneration, in a theoretical respect, and since they 
are included in their genus, it would be as absurd to say 
that " sanctification," the genus, is an inward work, and 
not the fruit of regeneration, in this particular instance, 
as it would be to say that the genus quadruped includes 
the eagle and the lark as its species. The "properties" 
"in common" are wanting alike in both cases. 

But the objector may say that our word is not generic. 
To this we answer : First. That such a mode of expres- 
sion is quite common. We have an instance of it in 
Luke xviii, 20, where our Lord, in addressing the ruler, 
said, " Thou knowest the commandments," which is here 
used in a generic manner, because it includes, both in plu- 
rality and in sense all the commands of the Decalogue 
given immediately in detail. Second. Exclude the genus 
from the sentence, and {a) Our brethren of the entire 
sanctification school, who rely upon this text as a proof, 
lose their favorite word entirely, (h) The sense, in so 
doing, is not in the least impaired. Thus, "For this is 
the will of God, that ye should abstain from fornication,^^ 
etc. So in any example. The farmer says to his son, 
" John, drive those quadrupeds out of the meadow, even 
the horses, cows, and sheep." Or, omitting the genus 
''quadruped,'^ he may say, "John, drive those horses, 
cows, and sheep out of the meadow." Why is the sense 
in this case not impaired? Simply because the species 
of any given genus, all taken separately, include and are 
equal to their genus, as certainly as the parts are equal 
to the whole, as certainly as all four-footed animals are 
included in the genus quadruped. Hence the word " sanc- 
tification," in our text, is generic. Hence outward godli- 
ness is intended, as certainly as the mathematical axiom 
that " the whole is equal to the sum of all its parts.'' 



434 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



The parts, in this case, are the out\yard duties and ob- 
ligations of Christianity. The ^vhole of these is embraced 
•in the one word " sanctification." They are designed to 
be so taken, according to the general features of the 
whole Epistle. The apostle has actually enlarged on the 
external particulars of the Christian religion, in this chap- 
ter, in the species of which the holiness or sanctification 
is composed, as definitely and minutely as any sensible 
expositor can possibly desire. Although this passage 
seems so clearly to teach the outward walk in the Divine 
law, many Avho hold to the doctrine of entire sanctifica- 
tion, as such, quote this as a proof-text, and, of course, 
take it in the sense of an inward grace. This is the 
sense of Dr. Peck, as found in his book, where he gives 
motives and reasons why men should seek the great bless- 
ing which he writes about, under the idea that it is the 
WILL. of God! The mme of that will — there's the point. 
Is not outward religion as much the ivill of God as in- 
ward f Is not a man as much required of God to keep 
the Divine law as the fruit of the inward grace as he is 
required to seek and obtain that internal grace itself? 
"Why did not the Doctor take the scope of the passage, 
compare the context, get into the very intent of the in- 
spired writer, and give a full and clear exposition of the 
whole passage? Against the notion of our word meaning 
an inward work there are many things — context, scope, 
etymology, the iisus loquendi of the word, and the fad 
that the Thessalonians were already in a regenerate state 
before they received the command, "This is the will of 
God, even your sanctification." 

Here we close our three arguments on the three Greek 
words, dytoc, (hagios,) holy, ayA'^w, (Tiagiazo,) to make holy, 
and ayiaaij-oq, (liagiasmos^ holiness. It is our candid opin- 
ion that not one of these terms, in any clear instance, 
ever has reference to inward grace or purity of heart, 
any further than as the fruit has reference to the tre^ 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTTFICATION. 



435 



ARGUMENT XIX. 

"Aytwauvri — IIAGIOSUNE. 

We have yet one more noun, akin to the last three words 
about which we have written, which requires notice. This 
is dyiwavyf)^ (Iiagiosune,) holiness, and is derived from the 
adjective ayioc, (Jiagios,) holi/, ah^eady considered. "Nouns 
derived from adjectives . . . usually express the abstract 
of the adjective, and are formed in . . . ^ruvs, sime."^ 

For example, if an individual is (Twcpptov, sopJiron, we 
say he is discreet. In speaking of the character of that 
man in the abstract, to designate particularly his con- 
duct, we use the noun derived from the corresponding 
adjective, and say that he has aouppoamri, {soplirosiine^ 
discretion. This is just the case with the word in hand. 
When a person is ayioq, hagios, we sa}- he is holg. When 
we wish to speak of his conduct and outward life in the 
abstract, we say that he has ayttoffu^rj, (Jiagiosune,) holi- 
ness. This sense of these words, so intimately connected 
in relationship, is easily proved from their use in Scrip- 
ture. In Lev. xix, 2, God says to the children of Israel, 
"Ye shall be holy." In the Septuagint this adjective is 
ayioi^ hagioi; and the context shows that they were called 
such when they observed the commands of God. In 
other words, it was a word that qualified them as to out- 
ward holiness, as to ecclesiastical distinctions. St. Peter 
says, " As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy 
in all manner of conversation." 1 Peter i, 15. Then, to 
make his language plain, as to the sense in which the 
hohness was to be understood, he was careful to put in 
the adjunct, in all manner of conversation,^^ which means 
the mode of life or every- day deportment of Christians-; 
and to make forcible his exhortation he quotes the passage 

* Crosby's Greek Grammar, g 308, 



436 EEYIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



above mentioned in Leviticus from the Septuagint, ap- 
parently, which seems indeed to have been the apostles' 
Bible, saying, " Because it is written. Be ye holy, for I 
am holy." Such, therefore, is the sense of the word 
ayioq, (hagios,) holy, as before shown, when applied to 
persons. But ayiojawf], Qiagiosune^ holiness, is the ab- 
stract meaning of this adjective. Therefore, from the 
etymological stand-point, as illustrated and proved by a 
common use of the word in Scripture, it means outward 
holiness. This word is found but three times in the New 
Testament ; namely, Rom. i, 4 ; 2 Cor. vii, 1 ; 1 Thess. 
iii, 13. In the Old Testament it is used for at least three 
Hebrew words, neither of which with the Jews signified 
the work of the Spirit in the heart. Thus : " Give thanks 
at the remembrance of his holiness." Psa. xcvii, 12. 
Hebrew : kadsho ; Greek : 'Ayioiqw^riq adruu, hagi- 

osunes autou. " Strength and beauty are in his sanctu- 
ary." Psa. xcvi, 6. For strength" the Hebrew is i;', 
^hoz ; Greek : ^Ayiwawrj, hagiosune. " I will speak of the 
glorious honor of thy majesty." Psa. cxlv, 5. For ^^maj- 
estg'' the Hebrew has *iin, hodh; Greek: 'Ayiu)ffuv7)g,hagi- 
osimes. Now, since not one of these Hebrew words, which 
our Greek one represents, has any such meaning as an 
inward work of grace, the w^ord in hand, when viewed 
from a Hebrew basis, has nothing about it to support the 
doctrine of a second blessing greater than regeneration. 
We will now briefly examine it in the three places of the 
New Testament where it is found. 

1. Rom. i, 4 : " Declared to be the Son of God with 
power, according to the Spirit [d^'two-uvv^^, hagiosunes] of 
holiness." This is simply a Hebraism for the Holy 
Spirit. That this is so, says Dr. Winer, " it is now 
generally conceded by the best interpreters."^ This He- 
brew usage of a noun for an adjective is quite a common 
idiom of the New^ Testament ; e. g., " Deadly wound." 

* Idioms of the Language of the New Testament, § 34, 2, b. 



I 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 437 

Rev. xiii, 3. Greek : 'H TzXyiyrj too Oavdroo, wound of death, 
ScKin Hebrew, as Psa. li, 13: nn, {ruahh kodhsh' 

ka,) Spirit of the holiness of thee.^ Hence, the phrase in 
our text equals rd Tzvedfia to aytov, the Holy Ghost. 

2. 2 Cor. vii, 1 : " Having therefore these promises, 
dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness 
of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness [oyiwabvriv^ hagi- 
osunen] in the fear of God." 

Rev. Richard Watson — Institutes, Vol. ii, chap, xxix — 
actually quotes this passage in proof of entire sanctifica- 
tion, as an inward work of grace, and subsequent to regen- 
eration, as we understand him. His other proof-passage 
of the doctrine is, 1 Thess. v, 23, which, in our opinion, 
seems to- have far more and greater evidence against his 
view than in his favor. This passage we considered in 
Argument XVII. These two texts he thought suj05cient 
to prove and forever establish his views of entire sancti- 
fication. For he says, " Two passages only need be 
quoted to prove this." If we have been successful in our 
exegesis of his proof-text in 1 Thess. v, 23, and can be 
also in this, then this eminent theologian, who is prized 
by us as highly as by any of his readers for his work's 
sake, fails to sustain his doctrine. If he is correct, no 
argument can ever shake the truth he has advocated, or 
in any way weaken his position, or invalidate his argu- 
ments ; and he who undertakes him does it at his own 
risk. On the other hand, if he is in error, he has as good 
a right to be corrected, as he himself had a right to cor- 
rect the opinions of others, which he did so well. Let 
us, therefore,' cast him into the crucible of fair and ac- 
credited criticism ; let us weigh him in his own scales. 
A very few points of observation will settle the meaning 
of the word in our text, and render him liable to fatal 

* For the Hebrew rule of syntax, which allows this construction, see 
Dr. Nordheimer's Hebrew Grammar, Vol. ii, § 799, and Rodiger's Gesen- 
ius's Hebrew Grammar, § 106. 



438 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 

objections. First. The relation which the Corinthians 
sustained to God, at the time of the writing of this Epis- 
tle, is worthy of notice. Mr. Horne says, the first 
"Epistle was written from Ephesus about the year 57." 
Again, he says, " Christianity was first planted at Corinth 
by St. Paul himself, who resided here a year and six 
months, between the years 51 and 53."* As to the sec- 
ond Epistle, in which our text is found, he says, it "was 
Avritten . . . within a year after the preceding Epis- 
tle, that is, early in the year 58."f 

According to these statements of good and approved 
authority, the Corinthians were Gospelized by the apostle 
at least five years before he wrote the second Epistle; so 
they were Christians that length of time. This much may 
seem well as to the history of the Church. Now, we hold, 
that if they were Christians so long before the writing of 
this Epistle in which our text is, it was not necessary for 
the apostle to exhort them to " perfecting holiness," if the 
phrase be taken in the sense of a second work of grace 
in the heart. For they were abeady, as to heart, per- 
fectly pure, or at least had been made so in the moment 
of their regeneration. If the reader deny this, let him 
turn to Mr. Watson's Theological Dictionary, and com- 
pare his articles Regeneration and Sanctification, and 
see if he can tell what difference Mr. Watson makes 
as to the purity of the heart of one regenerated and 
one sanctified, since in both he speaks of the moral 
" image of God " in the heart. 

We have before shown that in these two definitions, 
above referred to, our theologian failed, and every man 
must fail on the same ground, to show any conceivable 
difference between the two graces as he himself holds 
them. For both his definitions are exactly identical in 
the two essential particulars pertaining to our argument. 
First. The inward work of the heart, as taught in both 

* Introduction to the Study of the Bible, p. 328. f P- 329. 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



439 



consists in God, by his Holy Spirit, placing there his own 
Divine ^' imaged Second. The proof of this, as given 
in each of his definitions, is the keeping of the moral 
law. And since both the regenerate man and the sanc- 
tified are in the image^^ of God, they come as near 
being the same as two mathematical magnitudes would, 
which coincide, when applied the one to the other. This 
Christian identity is according to what we may call the 
theological axiom laid down in Mr. Watson himself. The 
Corinthians, therefore, did not need entire sanctification, 
in Mr. Watson's use of the phrase, unless their regenera- 
tion, as complete as that of the ''image of God" within, 
be denied — a thing which no one will do. And such a 
regeneration being granted on the Watsonian basis, let 
no one object to our theory upon the whole, in saying 
that the Corinthian Church was " carnal " — 1 Cor. iii, 3 — 
and such like, and therefore needed such a sanctification 
as Mr. Watson speaks of. Such an objection is deficient 
in several respects : 

(1.) The objector ought to show how they could be 
made any more pure by such a sanctity, when regenera- 
tion is just the same, on Mr. Watson's theory, namely: 
"The recovery of the moral image of God upon the 
heart." 

(2.) Necessity compels the objector to say that those 
"carnal" and such like, in the Corinthian Church, were 
either never born of God, so as to come up to Mr. Wat- 
son's definition of regeneration, or else they had back- 
slidden. If the former of these only two alternatives he 
take, then, of course, the objection does not lie against 
our theory. If he choose the latter, then he adopts our 
views exactl}" ; and what is said of the Corinthians may 
be said of all the other primitive Churches, to whom 
the apostles wrote their Epistles, admonishing delinquent 
members. 

(3.) The objector should observe that the exhortations 



440 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part 11. 



of the apostles to delinquent Church members, are never 
to influence them to seek such a second work as what 
entire sanctity is said to be, but if they are backsHdden, 
they are advised thus : " Remember from whence thou art 
fallen, and repent, and do the first works." Rev. ii, 5. 
As David also when he prayed : " Restore unto me the 
joy of thy salvation," Psa. h, 12 ; that is, restore the 
blessing of regeneration. On the other hand, if they are 
not backslidden, but still in the justified relation, they 
are constantly exhorted to hold fast their religious stand- 
ing, and to advance in all Christian duty and knowledge, 
unto a perfection consisting in good works, as our argu- 
ments constantly teach and prove. 

(4.) The ground assumed by the objector, is unnatural. 
Like begets like. It is not the man who is born of God 
that has carnality, "envying," ''strife," "divisions," 
" contentions," etc.; but he is a servant of the wricked 
one. " Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not : whoso- 
ever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." 
1 John iii, 6. "He that committeth sin is of the devil." 
1 John iii, 8. St. Paul sums up all such things in these 
words : " Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentious- 
ness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, 
wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunk- 
enness, revelings." Gal. v, 19-21. These he gives as 
"the works of the flesh." He contrasts these evil 
works with the " fruit of the Spirit," which he says is 
"love, joy, peace," etc.; that is, one class of these deeds 
he represents as belonging to uxregexerate men, and 
the other to regenerate. Our Lord, in his discourse 
with Nicodemus, used the word "flesh," to indicate the 
unregenerate man, in the same sense as opposed to, or 
contrasted with, him who is born of the Spirit, for he 
said, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh." There- 
fore, the large catalogue of bad deeds, given by St. Paul, 
are characteristic of the unregenerate man who is " of the 



Arc. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



441 



devil," and not of the man who is supposed to be partly 
saved, and yet subject to such abominations. 

(5.) The impending objection presents a moral imj^fossi- 
hility. For the children of God are to be like him. 
They are to imitate him, as we have already abundantly 
shown, in all their actions. But God can not envy^ lie, 
cheat, slander, retaliate, etc. ; these things with him are 
morally impossible, because contrary to his pure nature, 
which is love. So is it morally impossible that his 
adopted children should do such, who are to imitate him 
in all good acts, as well as in an internal image and spir- 
itual likeness. Here is the proof : " A good tree can not 
bring forth evil fruit." Matt, vii, 18. The Avord "can 
not" here expresses that which is morally imposdhle. 
Dr. Robinson fairly states its force when he says, '•'Ob 
dwaixai, to he unable, I can not, both in a physical and 
moral sen-se, and whether depending on the disposition 
and faculties of the mind, on the degree of strength or 
skill, or on the nature and external circumstances of the 
case." Here the "moral" impossibility rests in the "na- 
ture " of the case. It is true a bad man may bring forth 
good fruit, to human appearance, but God will not give 
him credit for it. He may be benevolent because his 
neighbor is, so as to equal him. He may preach "Cln^ist 
even of envy and strife," and save a soul thereby, but 
not designing such good results, God can no more reward 
him for them than he can the Southern traitors who un- 
intentionally overthrew their "sacred institution" of slav- 
ery, and thereby did a vast amount of good. He Avho 
kills his neighbor accidentally is not guilty of murder; 
while he who waylays him with an intent to kill, al- 
though foiled in his purpose, is a murderer in his heart, 
and is actually guilty. God looks at the design. Dr. 
Adam Clarke, on the words, A good tree can not bring 
forth evil fruit, makes a strong blow at Calvinism, and 
yet we do not see what is to save some Arminians from 



442 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the same stroke. He says, Love to God and man is 
the root of the good tree ; and from this principle all its 
fruit is found. To teach as some have done, that a state 
of salvation may be consistent with the greatest crhnes^ 
such as murder and adultery in David — or that the right- 
eous necessarily sin in all their best works, is really to 
make the good tree bring forth had fruit, and to give the 
lie to the Author of Eternal Truth." Now, if the doc- 
trine of Calvinists, that the righteous must "necessarily" 
sin, " is really to make the good tree bring forth bad 
fruit, and give the lie to the Author of Eternal Truth," 
is the thing not just as criminal in regenerated Armin- 
ians, who sin by negligence and free willf If the Armin- 
ian, born of God, commits that sin of choice which his 
Calvinistic brother thinks is of necessity, and if this deed 
in the latter, as viewed by the former, would make the 
good tree bring forth had fruit, and give the. lie to the 
Author of Eternal Truth, why do Arminian writers accuse 
Calvinists of what they themselves are guilty, when they 
attribute carnality to men born of God? Will the errors 
of our neighbors justify us in the same thing, simply be- 
cause the manner of it differs ? " First cast out the beam 
out of thine own eye ; and then shalt thou see clearly to 
cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." The Scrip- 
tures abound Avith passages showing that sin and its com- 
mission, on the part of a believer, is morally impossible. 
" Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for his 
seed remaineth in him ; and he can not sin, because he is 
born of God." 1 John iii, 9. We know that whosoever 
is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of 
God, keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him 
not." 1 John v, 18. "Ye are the hght of the world. 
A city that is set on a hill CAN not be hid." Matt, v, 14. 
" No man can serve two masters ; for either he will hate 
the one, and love the other ; or else he will hold to the one 
and despise the other. Ye can not serve God and mam- 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 443 



mon." Matt, vi, 24. " Ye can not drink the cup of 
the Lordj and the cup of devils : je can not be par- 
takers of the Lord's table, and of the table of dev- 
ils." 1 Cor. X, 21. "What fellowship hath righteous- 
ness with unrighteousness?" "What part hath he that 
believeth with an infidel?" 1 Cor. vi, 14, 15. "Doth a 
fountain send forth at the SA.ME place sweet water and 
bitter? Can the fig-tree, mj brethren, bear olive-berries? 
either a vine figs ? so can no fountain both yield salt 
water and fresh." James iii, 11, 12. We should not 
say from these passages that God takes the soul, regen- 
erate, in part, and gives Satan a mortgage on the bal- 
ance. 

(6.) The objection is, also, calculated to destroy the dis- 
iindion between the righteous and the unrighteous. The 
tree is to be known by its fruits. The works of the 
flesh and of the Spirit are strongly contrasted by St. 
Paul, Gal. V, 19-33. When St. John says that those 
who commit sin are of the devil, and that persons born 
of God do not commit sin, he immediately afterward 
speaks of this distinction as their characteristic, in these 
words : " In this the children of God are manifest, and 
the children of the devil." 1- John iii, 10. We are to 
judge men by their deeds. But the objection before us 
erroneously destroys the Scriptural dilFerence in human 
character, in attributing the works of bad men to the 
children of God. Of course, a distinction between errors 
of ignorance, and such like, and willful sin, will be 
allowed. 

(7.) The objection is not a little calculated to lower the 
standard of true piety as to practical tendencies. For 
most men may more readily admit the doctrine of sin in 
believers than clearly see how to attam unto what is 
termed entire sanctification. They then become discour- 
aged, not being able to see their way clearly in respect 
to the true standard of Christianity, and live to a consid- 



444 



REVIEAV OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



erable extent indifferently. Would it not be much better, 
therefore, to cease to teach the notion of sm in believers, 
and strongly teach the doctrine of sin and its awful tend- 
encies in backsliders f Would it not work jpractically as a 
theory? Should we not advise believers to constantly 
possess the blessing of the new birth which is plainly the 
Bible standard of experimental rehgion? For we do not 
say that it is quite likely that thousands in Christian 
Churches, who at one time w^ere converted to God, spend 
years, if not all the rest of their subsequent lives, without 
ever feeling the witness of the Holy Spirit that they are 
the children of God. Now, leaving these remarks with 
the objector, we return to our argument directly. The 
Corinthians then needed, as the fruit of a pure, regenerate 
heart, confirmation, that is, an establisliing of them in all 
outward duties. Yerse 8 is a proof: "Who [Christ] shall 
also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless 
in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." If any one is 
disposed to think entire sanctification to be taught in our 
text, in the sense of Mr. Watson, he ought first to re- 
move the objections of various kinds which we have given 
in the first part of this work against that doctrine. Then, 
his readers w^ill so clearly understand him, that his views 
on this important question will soon captivate the entire 
Christian world. We will again prove from Mr. Watson, 
by fair deduction, that the Corinthians, being regenerated, 
did not need entire sanctification as he understood it. In 
his third objection against the Calvinistic doctrine of the 
indwelling of sin in believers till death, he says : " 3. The 
doctrine before us is disproved by those passages of 
Scripture which connect our entire sanctification witlr sub- 
sequent habits and acts, to be exhibited in the conduct 
of believers before death. So in the quotation from Rom. 
vi, just given, ' Knowing this, that the body of sin might 
be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.'"* 

* Institutes, Vol. ii, chap. xxix. 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 445 



Notice here particularly, {a) That, in this objection 
against Calvinism, Mr. Watson speaks distinctly and pro- 
fessedly in favor of " entire sanctification." {h) Of it 
having connected with it " habits and acts to be exhibited 
in the conduct of believers before deathJ' (e) That the 
passage which he quotes in Romans, as proof of these 
habits and acts'' " before death," is chapter vi, 6. (d) In 
the sixth chapter, and indeed in the whole Epistle, St. 
Paul constantly argues the doctrine of justification by 
faith, and since regeneration is its concomitant," the 
apostle speaks, in Mr. Watson's quotation, of regenera- 
tion ONLY, as opposed to the further idea of entire sanc- 
tification. (e) In the next verse from Mr. Watson's 
quotation, where the scope and theme of the apostle are 
the same as in his quotation, the verbal translation of the 
passage is : For the one having died has been justified from 
sin. Here the apostle was speaking of justification, and 
so used the very word dedr/.acturac, has been justified, as the 
margin of our Bible shows. We have already stated, that 
Dr. Adam Clarke says this verse means justification and 
also entire sanctification. In this place Mr. Watson, also, 
calls this very justification, wdiich was the theme of the 
apostle, '^entire sanctification^' with its fruits before 
deaths Noav, any one who will read these great and 
good men on this passage, bearing also in mind their 
view of complete sanctity throughout all their writings, 
can not help but see that they speak of the doctrine in 
this text in a confused manner. That is, in the midst of 
St. Paul's argument for justification, where he is rather 
speaking of its fruits, which Mr. Watson very properly 
calls "habits and acts," and in immediate juxtaposition 
with the very word to justify itself, they both speak of it 
as being entire sanctification. This is a confounding of 
their own doctrines and graces. And they, here, like 
Mr. Watson in his dictionary, manifest an absolute want 
of discrimination between their two blessino-s. The facts 



446 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



in the case are these. The apostle speaks of justification, 
in its real saving nature, in a very full and strong manner. 
Because he does this, writers on entire sanctification, never 
having a clear Scriptural theory of the subject, stumble 
and fall into difficulty. Then, as a consequence, incident- 
ally and unintentionally lay claim to justification and re- 
generation under the name of entire sanctification, simply 
because the completeness of the former, as a work of 
grace, deserves as strong language to describe it as the 
most sanguine entire sanctificationist can give to his doc- 
trine. The claiming of this passage, so clearly favorable 
to justification and the new birth, is virtually giving up 
entire sanctification by making the blessings identical, a 
thing which our good authors have incidentally done. And 
if they are to be made the same, if a person regenerated 
is at the same time wholly sanctified, then, truly, the only 
way to conceive of such a Avork as the latter, in the nature 
of the case, is to suppose the regenerated man and the 
wholly sanctified, like the Siamese Twins, to be born at 
once ! We arrive, then, at this conclusion ; namely, that 
Mr. Watson has incidentally called that " entire sanctifica- 
tion " which a more careful criticism must term justifica- 
tion. In a word, that Mr. Watson and Dr. Clarke both 
have ineidentally acknowledged that regeneration, as im- 
plied in justification, and what they call entire sanctifica- 
tion are the same thing. This same casual manner of 
expression on the impending theory, we have detected in 
the writings, also, of Dr. Peck, wherein all his evidences 
of entire sanctification we have shown to be simply the 
evidences of regeneration. The same characterizes Mr. 
Watson in his dictionary, wherein he gives the same out- 
ward proof to the one blessing as to the other; namely, 
keeping the moral law. 

It being conceded, therefore, by a kind of incidental 
necessity, that the two blessings which we speak of are 
identical, as our authors have treated them, we hold, (/) 



Ako. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



447 



That Mr. Watson's proof-text in 2 Cor. vii, 1, does not 
and can not mean an inward work of grace, as he sup- 
posed ; for we have shown, from approved authority, that 
the Corinthians were already regenerated several years 
before the apostle exhorted them to the perfecting of ho- 
liness. Therefore, keeping in mind our arguments for the 
sinlessness of regeneration, those who are Watsonians, as 
to this particular point, must take one horn or other of 
the dilemma ; for if the Romans were wholly sanctified, in 
our author's use of the phrase, in the moment of their 
regeneration, then, since God is no respecter of per- 
sons," and since regeneration one time is the same that it 
is another, the Corinthians were wholly sanctified about 
five years before the exhortation of our text, as certainly 
as the Romans were. Hence, the exhortation to them 
about perfecting holmess^' was altogether out of place, 
in Mr. Watson's view of it. So if we have him to rea- 
son over a converted Corinthian, as he does over a con- 
verted Roman, his friends will lose the proof-passage in 
question, by fair deduction, on the ground that a regen- 
erated Corinthian must be as free from sin as a regener- 
ated Roman. 

As to the other point of difficulty, if it be denied that 
the Corinthians were all that grace requires through the 
one work, regeneration, then Avith the same propriety 
may we deny the entire sanctification " of the Romans, 
and then Mr. Watson loses his argument against Calvin- 
ists. We will notice, 

Second. The context, as to "these promises" of which 
St. Paul speaks in Mr. Watson's proof-passage. Before 
considering this context, it is important to bear in mind, 
that when the apostle wrote this Epistle he did not divide 
it into chapters as our Testament is. These chapters 
were made, as Mr. Watson says, by " Cardinal Hugo de 
St. Cher, who in the twelfth century composed a concord- 



448 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



ance, and to this end distributed the Bible according to 
his own discretion into smaller portions."^ 

With this understanding of the subject in hand, we will 
regard the whole Epistle to the Corinthians as one unin- 
terrupted discourse. We will also consider this first verse 
of the seventh chapter, which is our text, in immediate 
connection with the preceding chapter, and quote from 
verse 14 till we include our text. "Be ye not unequally 
yoked together w4th unbelievers ; for what fellowship hath 
rio;hteousness w^th unriorhteousness ? and what communion 
hath light with darkness ? And what concord hath Christ 
with Belial ? or what part hath he that believeth with an 
infidel ? And what agreement hath the temple of God 
with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as 
God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them ; 
and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye sepa- 
rate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing ; and 
I will receive you ; and will be a Father unto you, and ye 
shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 
Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us 
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, 
perfecting holiness in the fear of God." Now, reader, the 
context and the proper connection of our text are before 
you. Several things are to be observed. 

(1.) Our authors, who are themselves entire sanctifica- 
tionists, connect our text with the preceding verses as we 
have done. On the phrase, ^'Let us cleanse ourselves/' 
found in our text, Mr. Wesley says, " This is the latter 
part of the exhortation, w^hich was proposed, chap, vi, 1, 
and resumed verse 14." Dr. Adam Clarke is to the same 
effect. He says, " The promises mentioned in the three last 
verses of the preceding chapter, to w^hich this verse should 
certainly be joined." By the words, " this verse," Dr. 
Clarke means our text, w^hich is Mr. Watson's proof of 

* Theological Dictionary, Article Chapters. 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



449 



entire sanctification, as a subsequent blessing in the soul 
to regeneration. Since, therefore, our text founds the 
exhortation, perfecting holiness," on the fact of our 
having these promises, and since the advocates of com- 
plete sanctity themselves declare these promises to be 
the ones contained in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and 
eighteenth verses of the preceding chapter, the truth is 
as clear as a sunbeam, and the evidence py^ima facie, that 
the theology — that is, the theological sense — of the word 
d^'foxryvT^y, holiness, in our text, must be couched in, and 
obtained from, the three promises of the preceding chap- 
ter, to which it refers. We observe, 

(2.) St. Paul's design in this whole exhortation, taken 
as one unbroken passage, (a) His intent was positively 
to forbid the converted, Christian Church of Corinth hav- 
ing friendly and intimate fellowship with the pagans by 
whom they were immediately surrounded. Mr. Wesley 
on the words, " Be ye not unequally yoked together with 
unbelievers," says, " Christians with Jews or heathens. 
The apostle particularly speaks of marriage ; but the rea- 
sons he urges equally hold against any needless intimacy 
with them." This note of Mr. Wesley certainly looks 
very clear and sensible. Dr. Robinson on the word says 
that it is spoken " of Christians living in familiar inter- 
course with pagan idolaters." That this is the apostle's 
design, is shown from the strong contrasts which he has 
made. Thus he contrasts in strong interrogatories " right- 
eousness with unrighteousness," " light with darkness," 
and "the temple of God with idols." His purpose is 
plainly to teach the very same thing which God com- 
mands all through the Old Testament, namely, that his 
people, of whatever dispensation of Church government, 
as a test of their covenant and spiritual relation to God, 
must not mingle with the wicked, profane, uncircumcised, 
and idolatrous people, so as to partake of their sins. 
This doctrine is forcibly inculcated on almost every page 



450 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



of the Old Testament, under tlie full promise of the 
Divine protection in case of obedience, and under the 
heaviest denunciations for disobedience. Hence, the apos- 
tle quotes as much as three passages from the Old Testa- 
ment in this very sense — that is, to dissuade the Corinth- 
ians as to any participation in idolatry, or in any way 
contaminating themselves with idolaters, just as God had 
done in his ancient Church, (h) Negatively^ therefore, the 
apostle's design is very far from urging the Corinthians to 
seek entire sanctification, in Mr. Watson's sense and use 
of the text, unless the promises in the immediate context 
which he quotes will, on examination, be found to teach 
such a doctrine. 

(3.) The promises which St. Paul quoted from the Old 
Testament must first be individually identified ; secondly, 
they must be examined to see if they contain the doctrine 
claimed by Mr. Watson. The first promise is, " I will 
dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will be their 
God, and they shall be my people." That this is taken 
from Lev. xxvi, 12, is supported by the reference in 
our Bible, by Mr. Horne, page 104, and by the table of 
quoted passages in which the New Testament agrees with 
the Old, as given by Leander Van Ess in the back part 
of his copy of the Septuagint, published in Lipsiae, Ger- 
many, 1855. This text, therefore, is fixed by common 
consent. We will now examine it, and see if it w^ill teach 
what some mean by entire sanctification. The words of 
Lev. xxvi, 12, are, " And I will walk among you, and 
will be your God, and ye shall be my people." This is 
a promise merely on condition of fidelity to God on the 
part of the Israelites ; for the conditions are plainly men- 
tioned, beginning at verse 1 : ''Ye shall make you no idols 
nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, 
neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, 
to bow down unto it : for I am the Lord your God." 
Verse 2 : " Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my 



Arq. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 451 



sanctuary : I am the Lord." Verse 3 : "If ye walk in 
my statutes and keep my commandments, and do them." 
Then the Lord promises many things to them, one of 
which is the blessing of our text, in verse 12, above 
quoted. 

Mr. Watson's entire sanctification, therefore, is, in part, 
nothing else than simply the external observance of God's 
laws as opposed to idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, irrever- 
ence of God's sanctuary, the breaking of his statutes and 
commandments, as mentioned in the first three verses. 
The second promise is, Wherefore come out from among 
them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not 
the unclean thing; and I will receive you." That this is 
taken from Isaiah lii, 11, is supported by the same author- 
ities given to identify the first promise ; namely, our ref- 
erence Bible, Mr. Horne, and the table in the Septuagint. 
The promise, therefore, which the apostle quoted is again 
fixed by learned men. We will now examine Isaiah lii, 
11, and see if it teaches entire sanctity. The words are, 
" Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no 
unclean, thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye 
clean that bear the vessels of the Lord." This text seems 
to be an animated prediction commanding the children of 
Israel to depart from the Babylonian captivity, as he saw 
the day of their redemption therefrom approach. He 
commands them prophetically to go out of Babylon and 
again possess their own land. He perhaps foresaw that 
some of them would want still to remain in distant coun- 
tries, which God did not design for his people. On their 
release he would have all to return to their own land. 
This is most likely the sense of the separate clause, 
Depart ye," etc. They are all commanded not to touch 
the " unclean thing. Take particular notice that in our 
version of Isaiah, the word " tJiing,^^ here, is in italic let- 
ters, to indicate that it is not in the original Hebrew, and 
so, when St. Paul quoted this passage in 2 Cor. vi, 17, he 



452 REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



did not use the word " thing He omitted it entirely, 
and our translators supplied it, and there put it in italics 
also. This is a sad mistake. It very much perverts the 
sense. In Isa. lii, 11, after the word (tame,) un- 

clean, our translators should have supplied the word 
person. The proof of this from a Hebrew source is ap- 
parent. Gesenius, our great Hebrew lexicographer, says 
the word is spoken " of the Gentiles." He gives our 
text — Isa. XXXV, 8, and Amos vii, 17 — as his proof-pas- 
sages. In Amos we read of a polluted land.^^ Here 
the word is translated polluted, and is applied to land; 
that is, a land foreign to the Jew, and unclean on account 
of it being trodden and inhabited by the unclean Gentile : 
so the word is here virtually applied to persons, although 
it grammatically qualifies " land^ In Isa. xxxv, 8, 
the prophet speaks of the ^'way of holiness," and says, 
" The UNCLEAN shall not pass over it." In this we find 
that man or 'person is to be supplied in the mind, not 
necessarily in the text, for no one would surely think of 
a tiling becoming a partaker of the glorious kingdom of 
Christ, of which the prophet speaks, but as opposed to 
unclean persons, it is said to be for wayfaring men." 
This fixes the sense of the word unclean, as used in He- 
brew — Isa. lii, 11 — quoted by St. Paul. The prophet 
commanded them to depart to their own country, and not 
to touch the unclean, the uneircumcised, the ceremoni- 
ally unsanctified pagan and idolater of any other nation. 
" On your release, get ye out of Babylon, and be ye sep- 
arate from all unclean heathens. God will make way for 
your escape ; he will watch and take up the rear, and be 
your rear- ward." So we would paraphrase. On the chil- 
dren of Israel doing this, the text gives them full assur- 
ance that the Lord will be their God. St. Paul obviously 
understood this passage in the very same sense. In his 
quotation of it we should supply the word person after 
dxaOdproo, unclean, instead of the word " thing. St. Paul 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



453 



must have due credit for a correct Hebrew use of the 
passage which he quotes, and this sense would be that 
the Corinthians must keep themselves, as Isaiah directed 
God's people before, from all idolatrous intercourse with 
heathens. Mr. Wesley saw plainly that it was an error 
to read the word thing'' in 2 Cor. vi, 17, and conse- 
quently he translated, " And touch not the unclean per- 
son." The reference in his margin is also to "Isaiah 
li, 11." The intention was lii, 11. Dr. F. Gr. Hibbard 
very properly says, when speaking on this verse, " Our 
Enghsh version reads Hhingf but this is unquestionably 
an error. The apostle was not speaking of things^ but 
of persons with whom it was not lawful for a Christian to 
hold any religious fellowship, and he denominates them 
unclean."^ 

We see, then, that a fair exegesis of the apostle's words 
just agrees with the words of Isaiah, and does not give 
the least countenance to the doctrine of entire sanctifica- 
tion, in the sense of a greater work in the heart than 
regeneration, whether the former be regarded as distinct 
from the latter, or a continuation of the latter till the 
former blessing is obtained. All the promise that the 
quotation contains is one on God's part simply to receive 
his people, who will stand aside from the wrongs which 
the text forbids — who regard themselves as his holy 
people by ceremonial distinction and grace. 

The third quotation of the apostle is not quite so easily 
identified as those we have already mentioned : Mr. 
Horne gives Jeremiah xxxi, 33, which seems very likely. 
In this the prophet speaks of the new covenant that God 
will establish under the Christian dispensation, at which 
time he promises to put his law in their "inward parts," 
" and write it in their hearts ; and will be their God, and 
they shall be my people." There are two points in this 
prophecy which we may mention : First. It implies, from 

*■ Christian Baptism, p. 134. 



454 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the fact of it speaking of his law in their inward parts," 
that at the Christian dispensation God will still have a 
Church who shall observe his moral laws. Second. That 
he will be the God of that Church, as he was of the 
JewSj only under another form. These, then, are what 
the apostle means by " these promises " in Mr. Watson's 
proof-passage of entire sanctification. They are not 
promises, on the part of the Almighty, to grant any 
thing of that sort. On a fair exposition of them, Mr. 
Watson, and all who hold to the same view on that sub- 
ject, will lose the text containing ''holiness." It will 
not bear such a sense; but, on the other hand, his proof- 
text falls to our purpose, like an heirloom, in perfect 
accordance with all our arguments, that sanctification, per- 
fection, and holiness, are simply the keeping of the com- 
mandments of God, as the fruit of regeneration, and as 
opposed to the breaking of those commands. We would 
beseech those who hold to this passage, as a proof of an 
internal work, additional to the new birth, never to inves- 
tigate it. Just quote it; never bring in the context; 
never introduce the design of the apostle ; for in so doing 
the reader or hearer might apprehend the drift, and detect 
the error. Like the Calvinistic doctrine of the " decrees," 
it will stand longer never to be preached or investigated 
before the people. 

(4.) If we make the ''perfectixg holiness " an inward 
work, it has no context to support such a view. It is 
absolutely opposed to the context. For {a) there is no 
inquiry as to what promises the apostle means when he 
says, " These promises." (h) There is no account of the 
context at all, as indicated by the word oSv, (own.) " there- 
foreJ^ Mr. Home, in his excellent Introduction to the 
Study of the Bible, under " Hints for examining the con- 
text," page 117, says, "First. Investigate each word of 
every passage. Second. jSText examine the entire passage 
with minute attention. Sometimes a single passage will 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



455 



require a whole chapter, or even several of the preceding 
and following chapters, or even the entire book, to be 
perused; and that not once, or twice, but several times. 
For instance, that otherwise difficult passage, Rom. ix, 
18, Therefore liath he r)iercy on whom he ivill have mercy^ 
and ivhom he luill he hardeneth, will become perfectly 
clear by a close examination of the context, beginning at 
verse 18 of chapter viii, and reading to the end of the 
eleventh chapter; this portion of the Epistle being most 
intimately connected." 

Again, under " hints for ascertaining the scope," page 
116, he says, " The express conclusion, added by a writer 
at the end of an argument, demonstrates his general 
scope. Thus in Rom. iii, 28, after a long discussion, St. 
Paul adds this conclusion : ' Therefore we conclude that 
a man is justified hy faith ivithout the deeds of the law J 
Hence we perceive with what design the whole passage 
was written, and to which all the rest is to be referred. 
The conclusions interspersed through the Epistles may 
easily be ascertained by means of the particles, 'where- 
fore,' ' seeing that,' ' therefore,' ' then,' etc., as well as 
by the circumstances directly mentioned or referred to." 
Now, this is from a well-received work of one of the 
ablest of Biblical critics, a work, too, of established author- 
ity as to rules of criticism, even among entire sanctifica- 
tionists themselves. Therefore, a demand of this rule, in 
an applicable case, will not be objectionable on the part 
of those who have adopted it, and the neglect of it in a 
proper place, as a means of eliciting the truth of a pas- 
sage, must surely render such exegesis defective. 

In fact, the good advice herein given by Mr. Horne 
has been incidentally, entirely, and unfortunately over- 
looked by writers on Christian perfection and sanctification 
in general. Mr. Watson has not even hinted at such a 
view of the context in this his proof- passage. Moreover, 
on the text held to by Calvinists, to part of which Mr. 



456 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Horne alludes, Mr. Watson makes a very able and suc- 
cessful defense of Arminian doctrine, in which he says, 
" As the passage stands in intimate connection with an 
important and elucidatory context, it ought not to be con- 
sidered as insulated and complete in itself; which has 
been the great source of erroneous interpretations."* 
Every critic knows that this enunciation of Mr. Watson 
is very true, and yet never was it more applicable to any 
man's writings, perhaps, than to his own, when he claims 
2 Cor. vii, 1, as a proof-text of entire sanctification, as he 
used the phrase. For as his text stands in intimate con- 
nection with an important and elucidatory context, it ought 
not to he considered as insulated and complete in itself; 
which has been the great source of erroneous interpretations. 
If Mr. Watson had not taken into consideration the con- 
text of the passage, and the scope of the apostle's argument, 
taking the text as insulated and complete in itself, the Cal- 
vinist would, at least, have held his own in the argument. 
Did not Mr. Watson, through mere oversight, consider his 
tAVO proof-texts of " entire sanctification " as insulated and 
complete in themselves We appeal to reasonable men who 
think for themselves, and whose rule of faith, with due 
regard for the writings of men, is the Bible. God is a 
consistent being. Divine revelation is consistent, because 
it has emanated from Him. All it requires is consistency 
of interpretation. Man is the most noble work of God 
in our Avorld, yet at best he errs. Had this eminent the- 
ologian — perhaps surpassed by none — only investigated 
the contexts of both his proof-passages On the impending 
doctrine, as carefully as he did that one in Romans, as 
to justification by faith, against the notion of personal 
and arbitrary election, he never could have sustained him- 
self on those passages, in the sense which he gives them, 
nor could his own mode of reasoning, admissible by all, 
fairly take them from him. Respecting these considera- 

Institutes, Vol. ii, chap, xxvi, p. 356. 



Aeg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SAXCTIFICATIOX. 457 



tions, if Mr. AVatson's view of this text and that of 1 
Thess. V, 23, have been wrongly assailed, or in any way 
misrepresented by us, those who indorse him as to the 
point in question, and regard him as impregnable by argu- 
ment, can, of course, easily overthrow our position, since 
error never can stand investigation. 

(5.) Let not the objector say that the text speaks of 
cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
SPIRIT," and that, therefore, there is sin in the believer 
which must receive a final stroke^ which stroke must he 
entire sanctification ; for, first, granting that the word 
" spirit," in the text, means the internal soul of man, 
which is the subject of the regenerating Spirit of God, 
the outward sins of idolatry, and such like, which the 
apostle forbade, if committed, would, in some degree, 
affect the soul. Second. The -veoiiaruq^ (pneumatos,) 
spirit, most likely in this case means the disposition of 
mind produced in the beUever by the Holy Spirit. The 
word often has this use; e. g., Eph. i, 17: "May God 
give unto you the spirit of wisdom !" Here it is so un- 
derstood by both Dr. Robinson and Mr. Greenfield. Dr. 
Robinson on the word, under HI, C, e, thus defines: 
^^The spirit, temper, disposition of mind produced in 
Christians by the influences of the Holy Spirit, which cor- 
rects, elevates, ennobles, sanctifies their views and feelings; 
fills the mind with peace and joy; and is the pledge and 
foretaste of everlasting happiness." Under these words 
he gives several examples as follows : That which is born 
of the Spirit is spirit — John iii, 6 — " Put for -vzoimzv/M^^ 
iaxL, is spiritual; that is, has those dispositions and feel- 
ings which are produced by the Spirit of God." Who 
walk not after the flesh, hut after the Spirit — Rom. viii, 1 — 
" That is, not indulging the depraved affections and lusts 
of our carnal natures and unrenewed hearts, but following 
those holy and elevated affections and desires which the 
Spirit imparts and cherishes." See Rom, viii, 2 ; iv, 5. 

39 



458 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Compare also tliose passages whicli teach humility and a 
Christ-like mind, and we have the very same theology in 
other vrords; as, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of 
me; for I am meek and lowly in heart," Matt, xi, 29; 
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ 
Jesus," Phil, ii, 5. Perhaps, therefore, the meaning of 
our word is as if the text read thus : Let us cleanse our- 
selves from all filthiness of the flesh and of the disposi- 
tion — have no thought toward idolatry at any time. A 
mere thought or suggestion to sin is not in the least 
incompatible with the highest conceivable state of grace, 
since Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are, 
yet without sin." Third. Suppose sin did remain in the 
Corinthians as regenerated persons, and that the true 
sense of the passage is, that they perfect holiness in the 
sense of obtaining entire sanctification ; then why did not 
St. Paul tell them to seek this great blessing by faith, 
since its advocates tell us it is so obtained, instead of ex- 
horting them to come out from among idolaters, and touch 
not the unclean thing, and separate themselves from them ? 
Are these, dear reader, the terms on which you would 
seek your internal, entire sanctification? Indeed, 
we thought you sought it by faith ! But this is by works. 
Therefore, it is the fruit of an internal grace already pos- 
sessed — which can only be regeneration. 
We notice finally, 

3. 1 Thess. iii, 13 : "And the Lord make you to increase 
and abound in love one toward another, and toward all 
men, even as we do toward you ; to the end he may estab- 
lish your hearts in holiness [sv dy.axjwr^, en hagiosune^ be- 
fore God." This text will readily appear to teach outward 
holiness, and not internal purity, except so far as the 
former marks and indicates the latter. The proof is in 
the passage itself. The apostle prays that there may be 
among the Thessalonians an abounding in love toward all 
men. This was for a certain end — ^^To the end he may 



Arg. XIX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



459 



establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before God^ 
All this is the same as the phrase, " This is the will of 
God, even your sanctification," only three verses further 
on in the Epistle, where the division of the chapters must 
not, in the least, be allowed to interrupt the sense, or bisect 
the context. Since we fully discussed this text, and its 
context, in Argument XVIII, we forbear saying any thing 
further on the text in question ; for we find that St. Paul's 
doctrine is the same every-where, as to persons once con- 
verted, if they had not backslidden. It is invariably in 
substance, " How shall we that are dead to sin [by regen- 
eration] live any longer therein;" "Walk worthy of the 
high vocation wherewith ye are called." John taught the 
same : " Whosoever is born of God [mark the degree — it 
is simply to be born of God] doth not commit sin." So 
says Peter : " Add to your faith [as the living instrument 
in your soul by which ye received regeneration, and as 
your true and only foundation on which to make any addi- 
tion] virtue, knowledge," etc. We repeat it, in the face 
of the Christian world, that there is no other salvation, 
taught in the Bible or required of man by the " Searcher 
of all hearts," than simply to believe in Jesus Christ unto 
the regeneration of the soul, and then, always standing 
fast in this grace, as the fruit thereof, to keep God's holy 
commandments, amen ! Here is the proof from which 
there is no appeal : " And this is his commandment : that 
we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, 
and love one another, as he gave us commandment." 1 
John iii, 23. What will the advocates of the peculiar 
theory in question do with this passage, even granting 
that their arguments and doctrine are true, except that 
they make the most irreconcilable jargon? This text is 
so plain that no sincere inquirer after truth can put any 
construction upon it only just what it says, whether he 
read it in the Greek or in the English. " Wayfaring men 
though fools," can not err herein, should they give it even 



460 



EEVIE^ OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOX. [Part II. 



the most cursory reading, Avithout seeing in it the whole 
duty of man both toward God and men. The terms here 
are easily understood. The words, " His commandment," 
either mean all the Bible, or the full and complete cliarge 
of Christ to men while he was on earth ; that is, his whole 
Gospel as preached. In either case it means the whole 
WILL of God. But all his will is fulfilled under two parts : 
(1.) To believe in Christ, which can mean neither more 
nor less than unto justification and regeneration ; or, as 
we have before said, to perform man^s part in the Abra- 
hamie covenant. (2.) The .second part is. That we love 
one another. This latter is Christian perfection. It is all 
the entire sanctification that there is. It is the fruit of 
the former. " Love is the fulfilling of the law." 

Now, reader, please sufi'er a general remark before 
closinor this arcjument. Observe, that the friends and 
favorites of complete sanctity can not comprehend their 
own doctrine for obscurity — they never can till they 
recant it ; nor are they able to preach it systematically 
for the same reason ; nor to experience it for the thick 
darkness in which it is enveloped; nor are they able to 
profess it to others, because to such it is inconceivable, 
except they ignore the " hope " of the regenerated which 
" maketh not ashamed;" nor is the Church decided on 
it, for want of a clear exposition on the subject; nor 
have they one clear passage in the Bible to sustain them, 
on account of a misapprehension of the terms of Scrip- 
ture. But, as to our view of the subject, every step we 
take is plain — the next one plainer — their proof-passages 
fail on investigation, and all the Bible comes in to our 
support like as the rising god of day dispels the mist and 
darkness of night. 



Arg. XX.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



461 



ARGUMENT XX. 

TiXewq — TELEIOS. 

The teleios argument we now take in hand. This word 
occurs nineteen times in the New Testament. It is used 
in the Septuagint as the Greek word for the Hebrew ^"or\, 
(tainim,) perfect, in some of the texts ah-eady examined 
where this Hebrew appears in the Old Testament. And 
since it was found, in that language, to signify loerfed, in 
the sense of keeping the moral law, it follows that where- 
ever the Septuagint uses teleios for that Hebrew word, it 
there means perfect in the same sense. Deut. xviii, 13, 

has : riXecoc; iarj ivavrur^ y.opioo rod dead aoo^ PERFECT sJlolt 

thou be before the Lord ihy God. So in Gen. vi, 9, where 
it speaks of Noah. In both these places we have shown 
the sense in which the word is to be taken in the Hebrew. 
Of course it must have the same signification in the Greek. 
The Septuagint, therefore, comes in to favor our argu- 
ment, showing that -iXsioq^ teleios, is descriptive of an out- 
ward work and not of an inward grace. It is proper to 
notice, 

1. Matt. V, 48: "Be ye therefore perfect, [teleioi,'] 
even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect 
[teleiosy Several things concerning this text are to be 
observed. 

(1.) Writers on Christian perfection hold it to teach an 
inward work by the Avord " perfect." In the " Plain 
Account of Christian Perfection," page 54, the question 
is asked, "Q. What command is there to the same effect?" 
That is, " Expecting to be saved from all sin," page 53. 
The answer is given, "A 1. 'Be ye perfect, as your 
Father who is in heaven is perfect.' Matt, v, 48." Dr. 
Peck, on page 205 of his Christian Perfection, Abridged 
Edition, in Lecture IX, under his ''Direct Scripture 



462 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



Proofs," begins that Lecture in these words: "The pur- 
pose of the present lecture shall be to present the direct 
Scripture evidence of the attainableness of a state of 
entire sanctification in this life." Then on page 207 he 
says, " 1. I first urge, that God commands us to be per- 
fect. 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father 
which is in heaven is perfect.' Matt, v, 48." Both these , 
authors, it may be seen from these quotations, hold this 
passage to teach an inward work, when we consider the 
sense in which they set forth, the entire subject of perfec- 
tion in their writings. Tiiya view seems to be pregnant 
^\ith. error. We propose to show that the perfection is 
outiuard. In this the Scripture shall be the proof. If it 
fail, where shall we go? We observe, 

(2.) That the little word therefore " in our text, which 
our authors have strangely overlooked, shows that the 
passage has a context, which must always agree in doctrine 
or theological sense, with the exhortation or command 
immediately following the word "therefore." The term 
" therefore " in the Greek is uuv, oun. It is a contracted 
form of eon, the neuter Ionic form of the present par- 
ticiple of the verb eliu, (eimi,) to be, and radically signifies, 
it being so; hence, by an easy transition, it passes to the 
sense of then, therefore,^ etc. Now, this " it being so,'^ 
or ^Hherefore,'' refers to the context just before. Our 
text being verse 48, we will go back and quote from verse 
43, and this much of the chapter is all our argument 
needs as a context. "Ye have heard that it hath been 
said. Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy : 
but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that 
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for 
them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in 
heaven ; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on 

* See Groves's Greek-English Dictionary on the word, and Professor 
Alpheus Crosby's Greek Grammar, g 328. 



Arg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



463 



the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye ? 
do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute 
your brethren only, what do ye more than others ? do not 
even the publicans so ? Be ye therefore perfect even as 
your Father in heaven is perfect." Do we not see, at 
once, that the perfection of our Heavenly Father, as 
taught in this context, consists in his loving his enemies? 
He makes the sun, essential to every temporal blessing, 
to rise on the "evil" man, and on the ''good" alike. He 
is no respecter of persons. He sends the rain on the 
just who are fit for paradise, and on the unjust who are 
ripe for destruction and eternal banishment, making no 
distinction whatever, so perfect, that is, complete, is his 
love ! So impartial are his attributes ! It is Godlike to 
love an enemy and to confer upon him blessings. It is 
human to hate and to retaliate. This, then, is the perfec- 
tion of our Heavenly Father. What perfect love ! We 
must bless them that curse us like as he does them that 
curse him, while he sends them sun and shower; we must 
do good to them that hate us, like as he does to them 
that hate him. We must pray for them that despitefully 
use us, like as he does for his enemies through the medi- 
ation of his dear Son, our Savior. These things we are 
commanded to do, "that ye may be the children of your 
Father which is in heaven." 

We hold that the term "perfect," immediately after 
the word " therefore," must be taken in this sense of the 
context. It will then mean the fulfillment of the moral 
law, and thus agree with the Old Testament use of the word 
as found in the Septuagint. The use of " therefore " in other 
places will prove this. For example, in the next chapter 
our Lord teaches his disciples how to pray, saying, 
"When thou prayest thou shalt not be as the h^^pocrites." 
Then he proceeds to tell about their ostentatious manner 
of praying — on the corners of the streets, etc., and as 



464 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



opposed to this custom, so very unacceptable to God, he 
says, " Enter into thy closet " When ye pray use not 
vain repetitions as the heathens do," etc. He then 
closes this much of his discourse, pertaining to prayer in 
the command, "Be not ye therefore [oSv, oun] like 
unto them." Is it not apparent, from these words and 
their conclusion, that the term "therefore" refers to the 
context where we have just quoted it, and where Christ 
was teaching his disciples to pray in humility, and not as 
those proud, formal Pharisees, whom he called hypocrites, 
pray ? He tells his disciples to be unlike them ; but if 
the concluding exhortation, "Be ye not therefore like 
unto them," be wholly disconnected from its context, as 
Mr. Wesley and Dr. Peck have taken our text, apart 
from its context, in their manner of quoting it in their 
works on Christian perfection, what is to show the char- 
acteristic in those heathens to which the disciples are to 
be unhke? Or, if the exhortation, thus isolated from its 
main discourse, be so employed, what authority have we 
for thinking that the pronoun "them" refers to heathens? 
Does it not just as much, under such a mode of interpret- 
ation, refer to the sun, moon, and stars? This may 
serve to convince us that the connective " therefore " 
introduces a conclusion which we presume no fair inter- 
preter can overlook in fixing the meaning of the com- 
mand, "Be ye not therefore like unto them." The 
same may be said of verse 34, where it is said, " Take 
therefore \_oo>, ouii] no thought for the morrow;" and 
verse 31, " Therefore \_uu>y oun] take no thought, say- 
ing, What shall ye eat?" A score of such instances 
might be quoted. So the context just before our text, as 
already quoted, is strengthened in our favor by the fact 
that after Christ shows his disciples how sinful and un- 
worthy men receive favors from him, so ive ought to con- 
fer favors on such men also. 

And since the context immediately before our text 



Arg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 465 



savors much of almsgiving, and since Christ, in this part 
of his sermon, had this feature of Christian duty in con- 
sideration, and fully implied in the words " bless them 
that curse you, do good to them that hate you," he be- 
gins the next chapter — that is, he continues his discourse 
which is divided by the division of our chapters — with 
further instructions, as to the manner of doing this, say- 
ing, " Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to 
be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your 
Father which is in heaven." All this proves, if we had 
no other evidence in the case, that the perfection com- 
manded by our Lord, since he enlarges on the subject 
both before and after our text, joining all together, and 
showing the relation of the parts to the whole by the 
term "therefore," consists in that external religion of 
almsgiving and of kindness to enemies, instead of an 
internal work which would here have no context to sup- 
port it. This was an address to the " disciples," who were 
already pure in heart, and who did not need to be made 
any purer, but who were required to keep the purity 
wliicJi they had, and to bring forth the fruits of Chris- 
tianity as exhibited in love toward all men — even to the 
blessing of an enemy. 

(3.) The phrase " even as," in our text, does not fully 
convey the sense to the English reader. Many, at least, 
misunderstand it. I have personally asked not a few, 
what they understand by our being perfect even as our 
Heavenly Father. They have almost invariably answered, 
" We must he perfect in our sphere as God is in his.^^ This 
is very true, yet we are in darkness just as much as ever, 
since God's sphere " is undefined in the same manner as 
his perfection is undefined. Their answer does not ex- 
plain, but it simply changes the form of the difficulty. 
It is granted that the phrase " even as," in our text, may 
answer the true purpose as a translation, but it is not 
sufficiently expressive of the precise meaning, if taken as 



466 



REVIETV OF WESLETAX PERFECTIOX. [Part II. 



an English plirase just as it stands ; since, as such, it has 
two meanings. It may signify, first, equality^ in the ab- 
stract; e. g., we may say, "the apple is even as large as 
the peach." In this instance it expresses equality, as to 
size, in the objects compared. In this sense of equality, 
we think some have understood the phrase " even as," in 
this text. Thus the mind has not been able to compre- 
hend the duty enjoined. Regeneration has been lowered, 
as to its completeness as a work in the soul, the outward 
obligations of religion have received an inward sense, and 
man the finite, like ^-E sop's frog swelling to equal the ox, 
has tried in vain to see how he can equal the infinite per- 
fection of the infinite Father ! Second. The words " even 
as," in our e very-day sense, mean likeness or resemhlayice 
in action; e. g., the teacher takes in hand the pen, and 
before the eyes of the young pupil he writes a cojDy, and 
says to the pupil, "Xow, you write 'as,' or 'even as,' I 
do;" "hold your pen 'as,' or 'even as,' I do," etc. In 
such instances as these it is obvious that the phrase means 
resemblance or likeness in action. Rev. Richard AYatson 
is exactly to the point here. He says, " The particle 
wG-tp, {liosper^ even as, does not here signify equality but 
resemhlance ; an entire conformity to the full extent of our 
mental and moral capacity. Philo finely observes, ^The 
best wish we can frame, and the very perfection of felicity, 
is a resemblance to God.'* "^ 

The Greek word wa-zo, hosper, here translated "even 
as," Greenfield thus defines : " As, that is, in the same way 
or manner as. Matt, vi, 2 ; xxiv, 38 ; as, as it were, like 
as, 1 Thess. v, 3." Groves defines it, "As, like, as indeed, 
like as." Dr. Robinson, " As, just as, like as, Matt, v, 48." 
All these lexicographers, of good authority, give the one 
definition, " like as," which we will adopt as the proper 
meaning of the term in our text. We will also give some 
illustrations of its use, as such wiQ serve yet more to 

* Exposition in loco. 



Am. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



467 



make our argument sure and sound : " Do not sound a 
trumpet before thee [cu(r-£/>, like as, that is, in the same 
manner as'\ the hypocrites do," Matt, vi, 2. " When thou 
prajest thou shalt not be [a>^-£^, like as, or in the same 
MANNER as] the hjpocrites are," Matt, vi, 5. " The Holy 
Ghost fell on them, [axr-sf), like as, or in the same man- 
ner AS,] on us at the beginning," Acts xi, 15. " He shall 
separate them one from another [wrrTTc^o, like as, or in the 
same manner as] a shepherd divideth his sheep from the 
goats," Matt, xxv, 32. So we might go on to illustrate 
our word if more proof were needed. It (axr-sp, hosper^ 
occurs in the New Testament forty-two times. Thirty- 
nine times it is rendered as in our Enghsh version ; twice 
by the phrase even as, namely, in our text, and in Matt. 
XX, 28, " Even as the Son of man came not to be min- 
istered unto ;" once it is rendered like as, namely, Rom. 
vi, 4, " That like as Christ was raised." I think it can 
not be doubted that the phrase like as, or in the same 
manner AS, which we have adopted, will give the precise 
sense and translation of the word in the forty-two places. 
We plainly see, then, that it means resemblance in action. 
It does not express equality, we most confidently think, 
in one instance. It means imitation in doing something. 
In view of these arguments, and bearing in mind also 
what has been said as to the context, we would under- 
stand our text thus : ^' Be ye therefore [that is, it being so, 
that God's perfection consists in blessing both the evil 
and the good] perfect, like as, or in the same 

manner as] your Father which is in heaven is perfect." 
Imitate him in that complete godlike love which alone 
can make you the true friend and benefactor of your ene- 
mies ! Imitate his acts of mercy. Be ye perfect in the 
same wag or manner as God is. In still greater proof 
of the impending idea, it is remarkable that our Lord, in 
our text, calls him " your Father which is in heaven," 
as if he had said, " You are his adopted children through 



468 



EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



grace, now imitate him as ye did in earthly things your 
earthly father." How the little child will imitate the fa- 
ther! so must the child of grace imitate Ms Father. 
When the soul — the internal man — is regenerated, the 
Holy Ghost makes that spiritual man to feel, to think, 
and to enjoy himself; to be like Christ, because he is re- 
newed into the Divine image. So, also, as to the outivard 
man ; his acts must imitate Christ's acts ; that is, in plain 
words, the Christian must be like — IN the same manner 
AS — Christ, both inside and outside. 

St. Paul hit the idea, more than once, precisely, and 
well did he understand the theology embraced in our text, 
when he said, ''Be ye therefore [ow, oun'\ followers 
\jj.iiJ.riTal^ mimetai, imitators, mimics, of course not in the 
ludicrous sense] of God as dear children, [imitate their 
parents and partake of their example]." Eph. v, 1. Ob- 
serve that this text of St. Paul has a context, as the word 
"therefore" indicates. It is also the first verse of the 
chapter. The division of the Scripture into chapters 
separates this command from the context which justly, 
exegetically, and sensibly belongs to it, as found in the 
fourth chapter. The substance of this context, as to the 
theology, is just the same as that in our Lord's sermon. 
Por, first, in both instances their words are addressed 
to regenerated people, to be observed as the fruit of that 
state. Second. The sum and substance of the context in 
each case is love to our fellow-men, or, in other words, 
the keeping of the moral law. Por, says the apostle, in 
the verse before our quotation, " Be ye kind one toward 
another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as 
\_xa6a)q,^ katJios, IN THE SAME MANNER As] God for Christ's 
sake hath forgiven you." Third. A third point of same- 
ness is, that forgiveness is inculcated as in our Lord's 

*Such is the force of this word in very many places. See Matt, xxi, 6, 
xxvi, 24, xxviii, 6 ; Mark ix, 13, xy, 8 ; Eph. iv, 17 ; John iii^ 14, where if 
is rendered as. These will suffice. 



Arc. XX.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



469 



sermon. Fourth. It is in imitation of God forgiving them 
through Christ. Did not St. Paul here teach Christian 
perfection just as clearly and as forcibly as Christ in his 
Sermon on the Mount, in words exactly corresponding, 
and yet he did not use the word "perfect" wherein the 
debate at issue consists, but his idea is that of imitation f 
This imitation is abundantly taught by the apostles, who 
use the word ij.Liir^-f](; \_mimetes\ seven times, one of which 
is already quoted. Thus, "Be ye followers [imitators] of 
me." 1 Cor. iv, 16. "Be ye followers [imitators] of me, 
even as I also am [ayi imitator] of Christ." 1 Cor. xi, 1. 
" And ye became followers [^Imitators] of us, and of the 
Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with 
joy in the Holy Ghost." 1 Thess. i, 6. "For ye, 
brethren, became followers [imitators] of the Churches 
of God." 1 Thess. ii, 14. " Be not slothful, but follow- 
ers [imitators] of them who through faith and patience 
inherit the promises." Heb. vi, 12. " Who is he that 
will harm you, if ye be followers [ijnitators] of that which 
is good?" 1 Peter iii, 13. This word Dr. Robinson 
defines, '•''An imitator, follower; in the New Testament 
only in the phrase ixLtrr^-r^^ yivoimi^ to hecome an imitator, 
that is, to imitate; e. g., ij.iii.ioij.air The verb iJiixioijat^ 
mimeojnai, is the root of this noun, last considered. The 
same author defines it, " Properly, to mimic, but in a good 
sense, that is, to imitate, to folloio as an example." It 
still holds out the idea of imitation. It occurs in the 
New Testament four times. Thus : " For yourselves know 
how ye ought to follow us, [imitate us,] for we behaved 
not ourselves disorderly among you." 2 Thess. iii, 7. 
"Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves 
an example unto you to follow [imitate] us." Verse 9. 
" Remember them which have the rule over you, who 
have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith fol- 
low, [imitate^ considering the end of their conversation." 
Heb. xiii, 7. "Beloved, follow [imitate^ not that which is 



470 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTIOIir. [Part II. 



evil, but that which is good." 3 John, 11. Besides these, 
consider all those passages which include the idea of 
imitation in a general way, such as, " Be thou an EX- 
AMPLE to the believers, in word, in conversation, in 
CHARITY," etc. 1 Tim. iv, 12. "Tor I have given you 
an EXAMPLE, that ye should do as I have done to you." 
John xiii, 15. "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of 
me: for I am meek and lowly in heart." Matt, xi, 29. 
The same thought is found in the Old Testament in all 
such passages as this, "Ye shall be holy: for I the 
Lord your God am holy." Lev. xix, 2. 

(4.) Some who have maintained that this text teaches 
an imvard work, as expressed by the word "perfect," 
have also held that it is a j^^'omise and not a command, 
because the Greek verb "Edsffds, esesthe, translated " Be 
ye," is in the future tense. Hence they give it the idea 
of a promise, the same in sense as "^o sanctify you 
wholly,'^ as they use and understand this phrase. They, 
therefore, translate it, theologically as well as verbally, 
" Ye shall he perfect^ Mr. Wesley, in his notes, makes 
this a promise of perfection on condition^ that is, if ye do 
those things mentioned in our Lord's sermon which con- 
stitute the context to this text, then, as a reivard — as a 
result, he seems to design us to understand — Ye shall 
therefore he perfect. But in his Plain Account of Chris- 
tian Perfection, he regards the words of our text as a 
command that we should be perfect. Mr. Benson and 
Dr. Adam Clarke give it a future signification, and some 
of those mentioned regard it both as a promise and a 
command. Since this text is held as a strong proof of 
entire sanctification or Christian perfection, these terms 
being used interchangeably, to express an imvard work 
of grace, since the idea of this text, as a promise, has 
had much attributed to it to favor Christian perfection, as 
thus subsequent and additional to the new birth, and since 
it is an open question, and not fully decided whether the 



Akg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



471 



passage is to be taken as a promise in whole or in part, 
or whether it is to be understood wholly as a command, 
we propose to bring up the authority on both sides, and 
wherever the greater amount of evidence is, that side 
logically gains the question. 

In this contest most respectfully we remark, that Mr. 
Wesley, Mr. Benson, and Dr. Adam Clarke are against 
us. That is, they hold that our text, as well as a com- 
mand, has also a promissory character, some of them 
deeming it as such altogether, and some only in part. 
Here, then, are three great men who give, as such, their 
opinions. Now we shall meet these with human opinion 
also, and more of it in number and of quite respectable 
authority. After this we shall have quite a surplus of 
very good evidence to be applied wholly to our own favor. 
In this investigation we will present four classes of op- 
posing testimony. 

{a) The commentators. The point we wish to prove is, 
that notwithstanding the opinions of good and great men, 
and that some almost think it an unpardonable sin for a 
man to think for himself, and that the verb in the Greek 
is in the future tense, it is not to be understood as a 
-promise, but as a command. Rev. Richard Watson says, 
"The verb is in the future, but used Hehraice (as a 
Hehraism) for the imperative."^ Here is our " standard 
author " against the others. When the " standards " and 
Doctors disagree, must not the disciples tliink for them- 
selves? Besides him, we understand Henry, Doddridge, 
Barnes, Burkitt, and Dr. Thomas Coke to take the word 
in the sense of a command. For some of them are not 
only clear in expression, but they comment on our author- 
ized translation as it is, without criticism on the original. 
Here, then, it is presumable, are six commentators against 
three. Human opinion, especially when conflicting, being 
without authority, the question evidently can not be 

* Exposition in loco. 



472 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



decided by the commentators within our reach. Those 
who would hope for an inward spiritual blessing from the 
passage, in the sense of complete sanctity, simply because 
the verb is in the future, they therefore considering it a 
promise of such, ought, at least, to have their faith shaken 
in this direction on account of such a torrent of able and 
learned opinion against them, one of whom, as quoted, 
being a prominent and leading entire sanctificationist. 
We shall therefore present, as further opposing evidence, 
(b) Authorized translations of the Scripture. First. 
The fact that the authors of our received version of 
the Testament have translated the text, ^^Be ye per- 
fect^^ etc., where it was plain to their eyes that the 
Greek was in the future, they being excellent scholars, 
the presumption is altogether in our favor that they 
regarded it as a command, and so translated, that the 
English reader might understand it. Second. The vul- 
gate or Latin version deserves notice. It reads thus : 
^''Estote ergo vos perfecti,^^ Ye shall therefore he per- 
fect. This translation assumes this appearance not to 
indicate any thing like a future promise, but it is that 
proper form of the Latin verb exactly suitable to what we 
understand that meaning to be which should be given to 
this text. If the translator had used the short form of 
the Latin imperative, este, we should translate "" he ye per- 
fect." But this would not have indicated the obedience 
which the text enjoins as a standing statute of God which 
men are commanded to observe and obey. " The longer 
forms of the second person are used especially in refer- 
ence to future time ; e. g., in laivs, statutes, and the like."* 
In Latin, " The imperative, both in the active and passive, 
has two forms : the imperative present and the imperative 
future. Both express a command, but also a wish, an ad- 
vice, or EXHORTATION. The difference of the two impera- 
tives is this : the imperative present expresses that some- 

*Dr. M'Clintoek's First Book in Latin, I 508, Rem. 2. 



Aeg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



473 



thing is to be done directly or at once : as, lege, read ! 
morere, die ! or that a thing which exists at present is to 
continue to exist, as vive felix. The imperative future 
puts the COMMAND in connection with some other action, 
and expresses that something is to be done in future, 
when, or as soon as, something else has taken place. It 
is, however, not necessary that the other action should be 
expressed in words, but in many cases it is supplied by 
the mind."* Again : " Hence the imperative future is 
properly used in contracts, laws, and wills, inasmuch 
as it is stipulated in them that things are to be done 
after a certain time ; farther, in precepts and rules of 
conduct, that is, to express actions which are to be re- 
peated as often as the occasion occurs."t From this it 
will be seen, as this is the ^' imperative future," that is, 
future form of the imperative mode, first, that it never 
expresses a promise, but -'a command, ... a wish, 
an advice, or exhortation.^^ Secondly, that it is used " in 
precepts and rules of conduct ; that is, to express actions 
which are to be repeated as often as the occasion occurs." 
That is, we are to be perfect, like as our Heavenly Father 
is perfect, just as often as we can confer a favor or bless- 
ing on our enemies, and such a desire to do good we must 
constantly maintain. We regard the imperative in this 
place, and in its future form, according to our learned 
author, as very expressive; for in using the form the 
translator evidently hit the true idea of the great Teach- 
er, in setting forth our obedience to the "precepts and 
rules of conduct." It is enough that he used the impera- 
tive mode, and not the mere future tense of some other 
mode. Third. The German translation of this passage is 
very strong as a command, and not a promise : ''Darum 
solU ihr vollkommen seyn,^^ Therefore ye are obliged to he 
perfect. The German auxiliary verb sollen, from which 
the form sollt,^^ above given, is derived, is thus defined 

Zumpt's Latin Grammar, ^ 583. fib., § 584. 

40 



474 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



by Oelschlager : "To he to; to owe; to he ohliged, shall; to 
he said to.'' Woodbury, speaking of the verb sollen, says, 
" The primary and prevalent use of sollen is to indicate 
OBLIGATION or NECESSITY. What particular Avord or 
phrase shall be employed to translate it, in any given 
case, must be determined by circumstances. It is only 
necessary always to adhere to the primary idea; for in 
whatever w^ay expressed, that primary sense must be kept 
in view. The following examples will be sufficient to show 
this : Du sollst das thun, Thou art to (that is, art ohliged 
to) do that.''* Three translations, at least, favor the idea 
of a command; with no propriety do we see how they 
can be understood to favor a promise. We shall offer as 
further opposing evidence to the text as a promise, 

(c) Grammatical authority. Professor Crosby says, 
"A wish is expressed either with or without a definite 
looking forward to its realization. In the former case, it 
is expressed by the primary tense ; in the latter case, by 
the seco7idary. In the former case, if the wish is ex- 
pressed with an assurance that it will be realized, the 
indicative future is used."f As an example, he quotes 
and translates a passage in Plato's Protagoras, 338, a: 
" ow -oc7j<T£Te, xai -eiOtaOi iiot^ thus then [you will do] do, 
and listen to meJ' Here is the future used for a com- 
mand — that is, for the imperative. The Savior evidently 
"wished" his disciples to be perfect. He surely wished 
it with a definite looking foriuard to its realization ; ex- 
pressing a wish with aji assurance that it luould he real- 
ized, he used the indicative future. So says the poet: 
" He wills that I should holy be." This savors none of 
the doctrine of a promise, ev-en under the milder idea of 
a wish. The reputable Dr. Winer says, " In Greek usage 
the future is a milder mode of expressing commands and 
incitements than the imperative. (Matth. II, 1122, Bern- 

* Woodbury's German Grammar, § 83, Rem. 13. 
f Greek Grammar, ^ 597. 



Arg. XX.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



475 



hardy 378, comp. Sintenis ad Plut. Themist., p. 175.) 
Accordingly some will interpret Matt, v, 48, eW<r<?£ oZv 
vixelq riXeioi ; you wUl therefore [I expect it of you] he per- 
fect, comp. Xen, Cyr. 8, 3, 47. But this requirement, an 
imitation of the words in Lev. xi, 46, might be designedly 
used as the future for the imperfect. But in the Old 
Testament passages containing legal requirements, (com- 
pare the quotations in Matt, v, 21, Acts vii, 37, xxiii, 5, 
Rom. vii, 7, xiii, 9 ; compare also Heb. xii, 20, Fritzsche 
ad 3fr. p. 524,) the future is rather stronger than the im- 
perative ; thou wilt not kill, (where the not killing is rep- 
resented as a future act, and consequently unalterable,) 
that is, thou shalt not kill."* 

A few remarks are needed on this quotation. First. 
He refers to Lev. xi, 46, which is verse 45 in our version 
of the Bible, and also in my copy of the Hebrew Bible. f 
The reference is either erroneous or he has followed an- 
other edition of the Hebrew text; the meaning, however, 
is clear. Second. He says the "future for the imperfect." 
By the word "imperfect," he meant the Hebrew "rela- 
tive future," as Dr. Nordheimer calls it, or ^'vav consecu- 
tive of the perfect,''^ as Gesenius terms it. The Hebrew 
scholar knows what these phrases mean. For the satis- 
faction of the English reader, it is sufficient to say, that 
it is a pecuUarity in the Hebrew language whereby a per- 
fect tense of a verb is changed into a future ; that is, per- 
fect in form, but future in signification. This passage to 
which he refers in Leviticus reads thus : " Ye shall there- 
fore be holy, for I am holy." The verb, here translated 
ye shall he, in the Hebrew is gD'?p,^ ivih' yithem, which 
is the relative future. Dr. Winer calls it the imperfect, 
because Hebrew authors call the verb in this form by 
different names. Dr. Nordheimer calls that the future 
which Gesenius calls the imperfect. Hence what the 

* Idioms of the Language of the New Testament, § 44, 3. 
t Theile's edition, Leipsic, 1849. 



476 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



former would call a relative future, the latter, analogic- 
ally, would call the relative imperfect. And omitting the 
word "relative" in both instances, the future of Dr. 
Nordheimer's expression is the imperfect in that of Ge- 
senius's. We see, therefore, that Dr. Winer, supposing 
him to use grammatical terms as Gesenius did, is made, 
virtually, to say that St. Matthew used the Greek future 
for the Hebrew future ; and that he used it in irritation 
of the words in Leviticus. But in Leviticus the passage 
is a command to be outwardly holy, as opposed to the 
idolatry forbidden in its context, where it says, ^' Ye shall 
not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing 
that creepeth," etc. This command, to which Dr. Winer 
refers, w^as given to the children of Israel consequent on 
the statement of what the Lord had done for them — "I 
am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of 
Egypt, to be your God; ye shall therefore be holy." 
Verse 45. And says Dr. Nordheimer, "A command 
issued as the consequence of some preceding statement 
frequently begins with a relative future."* Here he 
gives several examples of the relative future correspond- 
ing, precisely, to the use of it in the passage in question ; 
as, " Circumcise therefore [Di^^5-i] the foreskin of your 
heart," Deut. x, 16 ; " Therefore love thou [i^^nxi] the 
Lord thy God, and keep his charge,'^ Deut. xi, 

1; ''Act therefore according to thy wisdom,^ 1 

Kings, ii, 6. 

We, therefore, come to this conclusion, that Dr. Winer 
understood St. Matthew, in our text, to use the future 
''in imitation of the words in Leviticus," as an imperative, 
as was the custom of the Hebrews. This is quite appar- 
ent from the fact that he is treating of the use of the 
future as an imperative in the place where we quote him, 
and where he actually names the very passage — Matt, v, 
48 — in question. This he does where he speaks of the 

*-See Critical Heb. Grammar, Vol. ii, ^ 986, 2. 



Aeg. XX.j PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 477 



future being stronger than the imperative. Therefore, we 
have seen that both Dr. Norclheimer and Dr. Winer, com- 
paring the passage in Leviticus with our text, hold that 
the Hebrews used the relative future of their language for 
the imperative, the latter holding that St. Matthew imi- 
tated that usage. This may seem very likely when we 
remember that Christ, who speaks to the Jews in Matthew 
in the Greek, was the Angel of the Lord," of the Old 
Testament, that spoke to the same people, as a nation, in 
the Hebrew, at which time he gave them the same theol- 
ogy that he preaches on the mount. How reasonable that 
he should imitate the ancient Hebrew by using the future 
for the imperative ! Rev. Richard Watson well remarks, 
in his Introduction to St. Matthew's Gospel, that "it was 
in the first place designed for the Jews;" the people 
who, from of old, had received this mode of expression, 
and understood it. And as Dr. Nordheimer says, above 
quoted, that " a command issued as the consequence of 
some preceding statement, frequently begins with a rela- 
tive future," we may ask, is not our text in Matt, v, 48, 
most assuredly a Hebraism, as Mr. Watson says, from the 
fact that Christ " issued " " commands," as " preceding 
statements," in the context, saying, " Love your enemies," 
etc. ? The passage, both as to words and context, q,grees 
with that in Leviticus. 

{d) As a fourth opposing evidence, we present now 
the Scriptural use of the future tense. We have given 
under letter (c) in the quotation from Dr. Nordheimer, 
both authority as to Hebrew usage, and, also, as to the 
Scriptural use of the future for the imperative. The Old 
Testament abounds with such authority, and it receives 
the sanction of all good Hebrew grammarians. The four 
verbs above given in the Hebrew, namely, circumcise, love, 
keep, and act, stand respectively in the Septuagint in the 
future, although the sense is imperative. Thus : Tzepire/x- 

eiffOs, ayauT^at'.:;^ (poXd'^rj^ nottjattq. We now Call attention to 



478 REVIEW OF WESLETAN PEEFECTION. [Part II. 

some places in the New Testament, included in the paren- 
thetic part of the quotation above given from Dr. Winer. 
He gives them his sanction, as being passages like the 
text in question, where the future is used for the impera- 
tive ; that is, for commanding. He mentions Matt, v, 
21, "It was said by them of old time, thou shalt not 
kill;" (I'oyedffeiq, the future for the imperative; for surely 
this is not a promise. He also mentions Acts vii, 37, 
" A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up, . . . 
him shall ye hear;" dxouffsffOs, the future again. And 
Acts xxiii, 5, " Thou shalt not speak [i/>eT?, future] evil 
of the ruler of thy people." So Rom. vii, 7, "Except 
the law had said. Thou shalt not covet ;" i-t6ofjL7j(recq, future, 
to express command. He also refers to Rom. xiii, 9, 
" Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not kill. 
Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 
Thou shalt not covet, . . . Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself." Here the future is found in the 
Greek six times, as it is in the English, to express a com- 
mand. And these commands, as quoted by the apostle, 
are found in the Decalogue, in the Hebrew, to be in the 
future, and so Dr. Nordheimer says, " Prohibitory com-* 
mands are always made by means of the future, with 
or nS, {'al or Zo,) not.^'^^^ In the above instances the 
" prohibitory commands" of God are given in the future 
of their respective verbs, and the apostle in the next verse 
says, "Love is the fulfilling of the law," yet the law 
taken in all its parts, as above quoted from the apostle, 
is set forth in the future. Hence, observe the close an- 
alogy in the words of St. Paul, to those of our Lord in 
Matt. V, 48. In the beginning of the immediate context 
to this passage Christ begins, "Ye have heard that it 
hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor," using the 
future. He then gives the same in substance that St. 
Paul gives, and sums it up in one command in the future, 

* Hebrew Grammar, § 996. 



Arg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



479 



"Pe shall he ferfed^ Paul, also, declares the sum of 
the law in one command, in the future, ''''Thou shall love 
thy neighbor as thyself J' Since Scripture is the best 
proof, we may observe what is in the context. It has 
already been shown that our text has a context, indicated 
by the word therefore," and that the command to be 
perfect is the sum and substance of the context expressed 
generically in the one word " perfect." The command of 
our text sums up all the context as far back as to the begin- 
ning of our Lord's discourse. Now, those who take our 
text in the sense of a promise, themselves agree that the 
perfection spoken of is a resemhlance to God, an imitation 
of God's acts of mercy, goodness, and love. Yet in all 
these places in the context, where the parts of the moral 
law are substantially expressed, they are in the form of 
commands, and not in the form of promises. How, then, 
when the sum of them all is contained in our text, can 
those who pronounce it a promise maintain their ground? 
For if it be such, they must throw away the context en- 
tirely. For it is simply condensed in the declaration, 
"Be ye therefore perfect." This being so, we can 
not interpret our text in any other sense than that which we 
give its constituent parts in the context. If it is a prom- 
ise its parts must be. And apart from its context, we can 
no more interpret our text than he who has never seen it. 

(5.) The identical account in St. Luke vi, 36, being a 
record of the same sermon of our Lord by another histo- 
rian equally credible, completely explodes the idea of 
those who think our text in Matthew is to be understood 
as a promise. Luke has it, " Be ye therefore merciful, 
as your Father also is merciful." A few things as to this 
passage are to be considered, {a) Our brethren who hold 
to the doctrine of Christian perfection or entire sanctifi- 
cation, which are one and the same, as a greater internal 
work of the Holy Spirit than regeneration, entirely dis- 
tinct from, and subsequent thereto, themselves admit this 



480 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 

passage in Luke, and our text in Matt, v, 48, to be the 
same in' signification, the same in theology, and in every 
other feature, except that the two evangelists used differ- 
ent words to express the true sense of our Lord's ser- 
mon. Rev. Richard AYatson, in his exposition of Luke 
vi, 36, speaks of " the parallel place in Matthew," where 
he means Matt, v, 48. Nor would any fair reasoner on 
sacred things presume to deny the fact that both evangel- 
ists gave the one meaning of the same sermon in differ- 
ent words, ih) The passages have, in substance, the one 
context, so far as it relates to the sense, we may say ivord 
for word, (c) The word "Eastjde, (esesthe,) ye shall he, in 
Matthew, which several able scholars and critics take to 
indicate a promise, simply because it is in the future, and 
because they overlook the fact that it is a Hebraism, is 
wholly wanting in Luke, and TbtaOz, {ginesihe^ become ye, 
used in its place. This is translated " be ye " in our ver- 
sion. Is not this enough to ruin their view, so far as 
they look for any thing in the corresponding text in Mat- 
thew^ to support them under the idea of a promise? It 
is sufficient to notice that St. Luke uses the imperative 
mode, and not the future for the imperative, as Matthew 
did; a fact that will settle the opinions of those who 
maintain that the latter teaches a promise because he used 
the future. In what Greek or Hebrew Grammar shall we 
find it taught that the imperative mode indicates a prom- 
ise ? Where shall we find an example ? As to the form 
of the verb used by St. Luke, we may apply the words 
of Dr. Winer : " The imperative present denotes an action 
being now done, or continuing, or often repeated."^ 
Are not our acts of mercy to be often repeated'^ (d) St. 
Luke employs the word y.adcuc;^ Jcathos, translated as, instead 
of wa-zp, hosper, w^hich is in Matthew. The former, how- 
ever, is to be taken in the very same sense which we have 
given the latter. Of this word. Dr. Robinson says it 

* Idioms, 44, 5, b. 



Abg. XX.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



481 



properly implies " manner." It is a woi*d quite regular 
in its meaning ; it is found in the original of the New 
Testament one hundred and eighty-two times ; it is ren- 
dered in our authorized version by the word how once, 
once by the phrase according to, four times by according 
as, once by when, twenty-four times by even as, and one 
hundred and fifty-one times by the word as. Perhaps in 
all these last instances, as in the passage in question, this 
term as has the force of like as, or in the same man- 
ner AS. *'Be ye therefore merciful in the same man- 
ner AS your Father," etc. "In the same manner as 
Moses lifted up the serpent," etc. (e) Instead of the 
word riXetoc, (teleioi,) perfect, as found in St. Matthew, St. 
Luke uses oixzLp/io^sq, [oikiir manes,) merciful. Here St. 
Luke just agrees in sense with St. Matthew. Mr. Wat- 
son very correctly observes, ''For 'perfect' St. Luke 
uses ' merciful ;' the meaning being the same. It is the 
Divine perfection of love which we are to imitate, in 
its principle and in its acts. ' God/ says Augustine, 
Ms perfect in mercy, both in pardoning and in conferring 
benefits ; so be you perfect, both in forgiving wrongs, and 
in conferring your favors and benefits upon such as need 
them.'"- 

One of two things, therefore, this argument requires of 
those who hold that St. MatthcAV is to be understood in 
the sense of a promise. Either to say that the passages 
are not the one thing in substance, being a particular 
part of Christ's Sermon on the Mount, wherein he incul- 
cates acts of love and mercy, or else to say that the 
phrase, "Be ye therefore merciful," is also a promise! 
If they say the former, let us then mutually agree that 
there are no accounts, at all, mentioned in the Gospels 
which are related by any more than one of the evangel- 
ists! If they claim the latter, we may also mutually 
grant that there are no commands, at all, in the Bible, as 

* Exposition in loco. 
41 



V 



482 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



to our outward duty as Christians — that the Decalogue 
contains ten promises I If Matthew, by our text, meant 
a promise, so did Luke ; if he did not, neither did Luke. 
But since the latter can not be taken as a promise, the 
former can not. "We have written at length on this point, 
because we understand some to regard our text in Mat- 
thew as a promise that we shall be perfect — that is, " wholly 
sanctified" — as a second blessing, on condition that we do 
the things which our Lord teaches in his sermon, as the 
immediate context to this text; as if he had said, ''Do all 
these things which I command you, and then if ye do, 
I will in return give you the Holy Spirit inwardly, in 
the sense of ' entire sanctification ' — I will ' sanctify you 
wholly.' " This is really the sense in wliich we under- 
stand some who write on our text in Matthew.- E. g., 
Mr. Wesley says, " How wise and gracious is this, to sum 
up, and, as it were, seal all his commandments with a 
promise ! Even the proper promise of the Gospel ! that 
he will put those laivs in our minds, and ivrite them in our 
hearts F'^ We think the reader is perhaps now ready to 
agree with us that our text is a command. So Dr. Peck 
understood it. He makes it one of his " direct Scrip- 
ture proofs " of an inward work of grace over and above 
regeneration ! Ought not such writers to give us a work 
on " Christian mercifulness," in order to be consistent, 
and make this doctrine synonymous with " Christian per- 
fection " and " entire sanctification," and make all three 
subsequent to regeneration, as an inward and thorough 
work of the Holy Spirit, destroying all sin from the soul 
of him who is born of God, and urge men every-where 
to seek it by faith till they find it, and bring up St. 
Luke vi, 36, as "direct Scripture proof!" We mean 
proof of the attainableness of a state of entire " merci- 
fulness "in this life!" 

We finally conclude that oui' text in Matt, v, 48, has 

* Notes in loco. 



Arg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



483 



not been very critically examined by those who have writ- 
ten in support of Christian perfection. It looks some- 
what suspicious as a text to sustain that doctrine. Like 
other proof-passages of such an inward grace, it turns out 
to prove the outward part of Christian life, and is, there- 
fore, in our favor instead of being against us. 

The word riXstoq, (feleios,) perfect, occurs in the New 
Testament nineteen times. In Matt, v, 48, we have just 
examined it, as applied to man. In that same verse it is 
applied to the Father. Seventeen passages still remain, 
which we will soon dispose of. In James i, 4, it is ap- 
plied to " work :" " Let patience have her perfect work ;" 
in verse 17 to "gift:" "Every perfect gift is from 
above;" in verse 25 to " law :" "Perfect law of liberty." 
Rom. xii, 2, it is used with " will:" " Perfect will of 
God." Heb. ix, 11 : " More perfect tabernacle." In 1 
Cor. xiii, 10, it is applied to the abstract: "When that 
which is PERFECT is come." Here are six passages more 
in which it is not once used to qualify meji, but things, 
and hence no argument is needed. James iii, 2 : "If any 
man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man." 
Dr. Clarke says, "To understand this properly, we must 
refer to the caution St. James gives in the preceding 
verse: Be not many masters, or teachers. Do not affect 
that for which you are not qualified; because, in your 
teachi7ig, not knowing the heavenly doctrine, ye may sin 
against the analogy of faith. But, says he, if any man 
offend not, {ou TtraUt^ trip 7iot, iv Xoyo)^ in doctrine, teaching 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; the 
same is riXeioq a^r^p, a man fully instructed in Divine things. 
How often the term Uyoc;, logos, which we render word, 
is used to express doctrine, and the doctrine of the Gos- 
pel, we have seen in many parts of the preceding comment. 
And how often the word riXstoq, teleios, which we translate 
perfect, is used to signify an adult Christian — one thor- 
oiighly instructed in the doctrines of the Gospel, may be 



484 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



seen in various parts of St. Paul's writings. See, among 
others, 1 Cor. ii, 6 ; xiv, 20 ; Eph. iv, 13 ; Phil, iii, 15 ; 
Col. iv, 12 ; Heb. iv, 14. The man, therefore, who ad- 
vanced no false doctrine, and gave no imperfect view of 
any of the great truths of Christianity, that man proved 
himself thereby to be thoroughly instructed in Divine 
things ; to be no novice, and, consequently, among the 
many teachers, to be a perfect master, and worthy of the 
sacred vocation." In this note of Dr. Clarke, including 
the passage on which the note is given, he refers to seven 
passages in which, in every instance, he regards the word 
riXsioq, (teleios,) perfect, as signifying perfection in knoivl- 
edge; that is, in the knowledge of the Gospel, as opposed 
to Jewish and false doctrines. His favorite words are 
^' thoroughly instructed." By this phrase he defines it in 
several of the passages referred to. And the six refer- 
ences, in the above quotation, except Col. iv, 12, are held 
in the same sense by Dr. Robinson, in his Greek and En- 
glish Lexicon of the New Testament. At the second 
definition of the word rilsioq^ teleios, he says, " Of full 
age, adult, full groivn; of persons. ... In New 
Testament tropically of persons full-groiun in mind and 
understanding, raTq ippzo\, 1 Cor. xiv, 20 ; or in knowledge 
of the truth, 1 Cor. ii, 6, Phil, iii, 15, Heb. v, 14 ; or in 
Christian faith and virtue, Eph. iv, 13." Since, therefore, 
these great men settle these many of the passages which 
contain our word, we need not argue it, having them, at 
least thus far, in our favor. Fifteen of the nineteen pas- 
sages containing the word we will now regard as settled. 
In none of them have we any reason to believe that the 
perfection intended has any such a sense as that which 
men mean by what they have been accustomed to call 

Christian perfection," as an inward work. 

The remaining four texts we Avill now briefly examine. 

Matt, xix, 21 : " If thou wilt be perfect, [r^;.££o?,] go 
and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor," etc. We 



AaG. XX.] 



PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



485 



remark, First. This passage teaches Christian perfection, 
as much as any passage in the Bible; but why is it that 
"writers on the subject do not quote this as a proof-pas- 
sage? Does not Christ here teach a man ho^Y to be a 
PERFECT Christian, not in knowledge, but on the simple 
condition of, "If thou wilt?" Second. It is manifest that 
if taken as a proof-passage of Christian perfection, by 
those who may claim any force from the word as to an 
imvard work, and subsequent to regeneration, it will prove 
too much. For, while they hold that Christian perfection 
is attainable hy faith, it is here clearly taught hy works : 
by selling what one has and giving to the poor, in such 
cases as this where one makes his possessions his god. 
Third. Since it is Christian perfection hy ivorks, it just 
agrees with our exposition of Matt, v, 48, and, moreover, 
it has the sanction of both Mr. Wesley and Mr. ^Yatson, 
if we regard Christ in this place as teaching Christian 
perfection as the fruit and proof of justifying faith. For, 
if our Lord did not teach it in this sense, his expression 
must be taken in the sense of obtaining salvation by 
works, and, therefore,^ would be contradicted by all the 
rest of the Bible as to justification by faith. Those who 
hold Christian perfection to be a great extra Avork in the 
soul, are contradicted, not only by this text,, which shows 
it to be by works, but also, if they should follow Mr. 
Wesley and Mr. Watson, they would come over on our 
side and hold the doctrine to be the outward acts of 
morality, which must not be done as the moralist and 
ostentatious Pharisees do such acts, but as the fruit of 
the Divine image within the heart. On the words of our 
Lord, If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments, 
Mr. Wesley says, "From a principle of loving faith. 
Believe, and thence love and obey. And this undoubtedly 
is the way to eternal life. Our Lord therefore does not 
answer ironically, which had been utterly beneath his 



486 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



character, but gives a plain, direct, serious answer to 
a serious question." 

We conclude from this that Mr. "Wesley understood our 
Lord to teach, that the young ruler was to keep the com- 
mandments from a principle of loving faith. To sell what 
he had and to give to the poor would have been a com- 
plete proof of the sincerity of such faith. And since all 
the comm.andments are fulfilled in the one word love, this 
selling of his property, and parting from his bosom sin, in 
benevolent contributions to the poor, would have been the 
fulfillment of the moral law. This done from " faith," 
as Mr. Wesley has it, we hold to be Christian perfection. 
The law must be fulfilled in this sense before we can enter 
eternal glory. We must be perfect. Reader, let go the 
world. Love it not. Christ thy God says sell it. Help 
the poor and the needy for his sake. Mr. Watson gives 
a long and good exposition of this passage. We will 
quote a few words, "The answer of our Lord is not to 
be understood as given with reference to the covenant of 
works, the ground on which some commentators place it, 
under the idea that if it was a serious and not a hypo- 
thetic direction, it would be inconsistent with the doctrine 
of justification by faith. The answer is to be considered 
with reference to the young man's question, which was, 
not, ^How shall I be justified?' but 'How shall I enter 
into eternal life,' or be finally saved ? • It is in no respect, 
therefore, an answer inconsistent with Christian doctrine, 
which, while it teaches that we are justified by faith only, 
as strongly enjoins that, if we would enter into life, and 
be finally saved, we must keep the commandments. The 
connection of this obedience with the atonement, and the 
work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, it is true, is not 
fully brought forward; but nothing is said contrary to 
either, and the case did not as yet require farther doctrinal 
explanation.''* 

* Exposition in loco. 



Arg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 487 

This much from Mr. Watson teaches us, that the drift 
of our Lord's conversation with the ruler was as to the 
keeping of the Divine law or commandments as the evi- 
dence of justifying faith. This may be expressed, in 
short, by one loving Christ so as to make a full sacrifice 
of all that he calls his, of loving the poor, the distressed, 
and THE OPPRESSED, unto the giving of all — unto the ful- 
filling of the moral law upon them in acts of mercy and 
love for Christ's sake. This we understand to be the 
view both of Mr. Wesley and Mr. Watson as to this per- 
fection. What difficulty we have occasionally to keep these 
great and good men from incidentally coming in and run- 
ning off with our view of the question ! Here is Christ's 
view of Christian perfection again taught, as consisting in 
outward acts of love, just as he taught it in his sermon in 
Matt. V, 48, and as Luke expresses the same in the cor- 
responding passage by the word merciful. Those who 
hold the doctrine to be an inward work of the Holy Spirit, 
and distinct from the new birth, ought to take this passage 
as one of the " Direct Scripture Proofs " of their posi- 
tion, and do the best they can with it; for it is a text in 
which our Lord taught Christian perfection, Mr. Wesley 
and Mr. Watson themselves being judges, just as clearly 
as he taught it in Matt, v, 48, and in Luke vi, 36, in all 
which places it consists in legal obedience manifested in 
acts of charity and mercy. Why do such writers omit 
this passage ? It suits us exactly. Further, Col. i, 28 : 
"Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching 
every man in all wisdom ; that we may present every man 
perfect [r^/lccov] in Christ Jesus." 

1. This text does not teach Christian perfection as 
some use this word. It is here the result of being 
warned and taught, as the passage itself shows. It is 
represented as the work of St. Paul, and other ministers, 
and not as the work of the Holy Spirit. 

2. If Christian perfection be a thorough work of God 



488 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



in the soul, consisting of the destruction of all sin, then, 
truly, such a doctrine has no place here; for, in chapter 
ii, 13, of this Epistle, there is as strong language em- 
ployed to express a perfect work of grace in the heart, 
as any writer on complete sanctity can employ: "And 
you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of 
your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, hav- 
ing forgiven you all trespasses.'' Now more than this 
seems really inconceivable. Then, why should the apos- 
tle "warn" and "teach" the Church that they might 
obtain what they already possessed? If they needed the 
finishing stroke to sin, which our brethren call " entire 
sanctification," that need supposes sin to be yet in them as 
believers ; for sin in believers is the creed, in order to 
make room for " entire sanctification." But our quota- 
tion says that they were forgiven "all trespasses" or 
sins; therefore, to say that sin was in them, granting 
that they had not backslidden, is to contradict St. Paul, 
and there is an error somewhere. Even if we should ad- 
mit that in all the Apostolic Churches there were e7ivi/- 
ings, covetoiisness, and fornication, and all such things, 
surely we are not to attribute such sins to believers; we 
must attribute them either to such as enter "not by the 
door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up some other way ;" 
to such, too, as Jude speaks of when he says, " There are 
certain men crept in unawares, . . . ungodly 
men," or else attribute such iniquity to men who, like 
Judas, had fallen by transgression. When the apostles 
point out and denounce evils in the Church, in a general 
ivay, speaking to the people eyi masse, we must not apply 
the sins thus spoken of to individual believers. For 
instance, it is hinted to a faithful pastor that one of his 
flock becomes occasionally intoxicated; granting him a 
Church relation under the circumstances, the preacher de- 
nounces the crime of di^nking in strong terms in his pub- 
lic ministrations. Is the stranger who happens to be 



Arg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 489 



present, and hears the discourse, to suppose that his en- 
tire congregation are drunkards F Surely not. Such a 
position would prove too much; for if the whole Corinth- 
ian Church was guilty of what Paul described when he said, 
^' Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor 
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" — 1 Cor. vi, 
10 — then the whole Church at that time was only ripe 
for eternal banishment from God. The doctrine of sin in 
believers from such considerations as these facts can not 
stand. Moreover, there is abundant proof to show, that 
both in the Jewish and Christian Churches, their sins are 
to be attributed to a wicked part, and not to the pious 
whole, {a) *Dr. Hibbard properly says, " The Israelites 
were declared a JioJy people, not because they were all 
morally holy ; far from it ; but because by profession 
they belonged to God, who had separated them from all 
other nations, and sanctified them unto himself by exter- 
nal rites ; because they professed the true religion, which 
MANY among them really attained in an illustrious de- 
gree."* Thus some were in the Jewish Church not as 
the pure in heart, but by mere profession ; and, alas ! 
such has always been the case, even to the present day. 
(h) The Scripture is full and plain on this point ; e. g., 
there were several wicked kings in Israel, as Jehoahez, 
Hoshea, and others, who did that which was evil in the 
sight of the Lord." In 1 Kings, chapter xix, many are 
represented of the true Israel as sinning against God in 
the worship of Baal ; but God said, " I have left me seven 
thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed 
unto Baal." The point is clear that all Israel did not 
sin ; but some of them. The devout ones remained pure. 

With whom was he grieved forty years ? was it not 
with THEM THAT HAD SINNED, whosc carcasscs fell in the 
wilderness?" Heb. iii, 17; and verse 16 says, "For 
SOME, when they had heard, did provoke : howbeit, not 

* Christian Baptism, p. 136. 



490 



KEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses." Paul says, 
"Now SOME [not all] are puffed up." 1 Cor. iv, 18. In 
chapter v, 1, he says, "there is fornication among you." 
Were they all such? Nay. For he specifies the case: 
"That ONE should have his father's wife." Mr. Wesley 
says they ought to have "expelled that notorious sin- 
ner from " the " communion." If he was a " notorious 
sinner," it was not a case of "sin in believers." The 
partitive some is a good index to the idea in question. 
It was " SOME " that murmured against God of old. 1 
Cor. X, 10. It was some that were infidel as to the res- 
urrection of the dead. 1 Cor. xv, 12. " From which 
some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jang- 
ling." 1 Tim. i, 6. On this verse Mr. Wesley says, 
" An affectation of high and extensive knowledge sets a 
man at the greatest distance from faith, and all sense of 
Divine things." So this " vain jangling " in the passage 
was not in a believer, but in a backslider. What is our 
conclusion, then, as to the text in Colossians ? It is this : 
God had forgiven them all trespasses. Internal purity 
was then complete, if they had kept the faith. There 
was no need of an additional purity to that of their 
regeneration. There is, therefore, no sensible significa- 
tion to be given to the phrase, " That we may present 
every man perfect in Christ," as to the adjective in 
question, but a perfection " in all wisdom," as the text 
says — a completeness in Christian accomplishments, such 
as doctrines and duties. So Dr. Robinson properly 
classes the passage with Matt, v, 48 ; Luke vi, 36 ; and 
Matt, xix, 21. 

James i, 4: "Let patience have her perfect work, that 
ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." We 
remark. First. The whole context and general scope of 
the apostle show that this perfection consists in the per- 
fectiyig of patience-, not in a second work in the soul. 
Second. St. James wrote his Epistle to give instruction 



Arg. XX.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 491 



concerning the outward part of Christianity, as the fruit 
of the inward lyurity. Third. Dr. Adam Clarke, on the 
word " perfect," in this text, says, " Fully instructed in 
every part of the doctrine of God, and in his whole will 
concerning you." From all these three points we con- 
clude an outward perfection to be intended. 

1 John iv, 18 : "Perfect love casteth out fear." Here 
the apostle speaks of perfect love. This, of course, is the 
greatest blessing conceivable for us in this life, as a work 
of grace in the heart — perfect love, the sum of the whole 
moral law, of the whole revealed will of God to man, con- 
sisting of, first, supreme love to God; second, love to 
our neighbor, as we Avould love ourselves. Now, when a 
^ soul is regenerated, the perfect love of God is there; for 
"perfect love casteth out fear; and where there is a sound 
conversion, that soul knows no fear ; the whole Godhead 
is his that moment ; God is his father ; the Son is his 
present, full, and precious Savior ; the Holy Ghost is his 
comforter, and thus he has all. In what sense, then, is 
the love of God, as ^' shed abroad in the heart" of one 
justified and regenerated said to be "perfect?" The an- 
swer is, God has abundantly taught in the Bible how every 
Christian must demonstrate by his outtvard life that he 
has the inward grace. " Let your light so shine," etc. 
"Ye are the light of the world," etc. "Walk worthy of 
the vocation wherewith ye are called," etc. Now, since 
love is the sum of all the Divine requirements, if it be 
the fruit of a regenerated heart and so manifested, then, 
by such love, both toward enemies and friends, to the poor 
and the destitute, to the sick, the prisoner, and the down- 
trodden slave, we demonstrate our Christianity in the vital 
sense, just as Abraham did when he ofi'ered up his son 
Isaac upon the altar, and so demonstrated to the world 
that he was a man approved of God about twenty-five 
years before, and remained such till that time. And for 
the supreme love which he had to God, he would take the 



492 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 

life of his own son to fulfill the higher love which he 
maintained toward God, his Heavenly Father. And thus 
"by works w^as faith [of twenty-five years' standing] 
made perfect," that is, demonstrated. And as our love is 
made thus perfect by acts of love to God, so, also, by 
acts of love to men is it made perfect. " If we love one 
ANOTHER, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected 
in us." 1 John iv, 12. So the perfect love of which the 
apostle speaks in our text is fully explained in his own 
words without comment. This brings us to the end of 
our investigation of the word ziXeLoq, (teleios,) perfect. 

We see no place where it means a second, imoard work 
of grace, as some understand it, in the nineteen passages 
where it is found. When it refers to the moral character 
of men, it is always spoken of as the fruit of the regen- 
erated soul, or, in brief, in some other sense than would, in 
itself, indicate a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart 
subsequent and superior to the new birth. This being 
the case, our position is becoming stronger the further 
we advance, and the closer we investigate, while the view 
of our brethren, who think otherwise, becomes more and 
more lamentably weak. Is it not a powerful presumption 
in our favor, that we have such an incalculable amount of 
evidence, scientific research, and incidental gleanings from 
the writings of entire sanctificationists themselves, every 
step making us stronger by the fairest and best established 
works and rules of criticism, which in most instances 
they have neglected to use in their arguments ? 

What but truth in our favor can account for the insu- 
perable difiiculties which we have alleged against their 
theory in these consecutive arguments? 



Aeq. XXI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



493 



ARGUMENT XXI. 

TeXsLOTT^q TELEIOTES. 

The rsXeioTrjq, teleiotes, argument now claims attention. 
This word is found but twice in the New Testament ; we 
will notice it first in Col. iii, 14 : " And above all these 
things put on charity [r^y ayd-rjv, love,'] which is the bond 
of [rsXsiorrjToq, teleiotetos] perfectness." In this Epistle 
St. Paul addresses a Christian Church "in Christ," chap, 
i, 2 ; a Church " complete in him " — Christ — chap, ii, 10 ; 
who were of God forgiven " all trespasses," chap, ii, 13 ; 
who by the one act of regeneration " had put on the new 
man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of 
him that created him," chap, iii, 10. Then, as a fruit of 
this perfect purity of the soul, he says, "Put on there- 
fore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of 
mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long- 
suffering; forbearing one another, if any man have a 
quarrel against any : even as Christ forgave you, so also 
do ye." Then, to crown all these good graces, and to 
comprehend all Christian duties in one word, he says, 
"Above all these things," just mentioned, "put on love, 
which is," awdeaiioq rv^q rsXstorrjzoq^ a bundle of perfecttiess, 
the sum of comjjleteness. That is, "bowels of mercies, 
kindness," etc., are, as it were, the heads or the different 
straws in the sheaf; love is the bundle or sheaf itself, 
composed of all these good Christian graces and qualities, 
and this is called a "bond" or bundle "of perfectness." 
Let no one find fault with us for interpreting by the word 
bundle, and so presenting our view; for we do it, 1. Be- 
cause the context allows it, and perhaps the apostle de- 
signed this very figure. 2. Because Greek nouns of the 
etymology of (Twdeff/ioq, syndesmos, express the " effect, or 
object of the action" of the verb from which they are 



494 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



derived, as well as the action of the verb."^ This noun 
being derived from (ruvdiw, (^spideo,) to hind together, our 
translators and others seem to have taken as if express- 
ing the action of the verb, and so have translated it to 
express the hinder together, and so a " bond." To these we 
do not at all object, but we suggest that it expresses the 
effect of the action of the verbal root, and hence means 
the thing bound up, as a sheaf, and so a hundle; that is, 
the sum of all the Christian's good acts as the fruits of 
his regeneration. This view seems to us both etymolog- 
ical and expressive, while we can see no harm arising from 
it. 3. Other passages prove that we are correct, at least, 
in idea. For "the end," scope, sum, or as Dr. Robinson 
says, final purpose,^' " of the commandment is charity," 
love. 

But love, in the true Christian sense, is a bundle of 
something. That something is said to be " perfectness," 
consisting in " bowels of mercies, kindness," etc. ; or, in 
the style of the logician, love is the genus, and all the 
other good graces in which it is manifested, such as " bow- 
els of mercies, kindness," etc., are the species. As the 
species are included in the genus, in the same manner as 
the parts are included in the whole, as the several straws 
are included in the sheaf or bundle, so mercy and kind- 
ness, and such like, are all embraced in the generic word 
love. Perfectness, then, as used in this text, is the fulfill- 
ment of the moral law, as the test of a regenerated soul — 
a completeness in good tvorks. How this agrees with the 
sense we gave the kindred word riXsto^, (teleios,) perfect, 
in Matt, v, 48, and xix, 21, and sustained by the text 
parallel with the former passage in Luke vi, 36 ! 

Heb. vi, 1 : " Therefore leaving the principles of the 
doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, rr^v 
reXeioTTjra,'] not laying again the foundation of repentance 
from dead Avorks, and of faith toward God." This text 

* Crosby's Greek Grammar, § 305, Rem. 



Abo. XXI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIPICATION. 



495 



Dr. Peck makes his foundation or his motto in writing his 
work on Christian perfection ; that is to say, he makes 
this passage his starting point, and builds, as we under- 
stand him, his whole superstructure of Christian perfec- 
tion, as a theory, on this as his general text ; thereby 
teaching an inward work of grace from this passage, as 
subsequent to regeneration. Where he speaks of the 

principles which we are to leave,'' giving the character 
of St. Paul, he says, " The great apostle is not of that 
class of teachers who permit their pupils to be satisfied 
with themselves when they have but imperfectly learned 
their lesson, or suffer them to linger and doze over their 
work. His motto is, onward. He endeavors to rouse to 
action the dilatory, by pointing them to the vast hights 
which are before them, and which are to be ascended be- 
fore they can be ' perfect and entire, wanting nothing.' The 
method pursued is, with almost the same breath to rebuke 
present defectiveness, and spur on to high attainments, to 
chide past negligence, and urge on to future fidelity and 
diligence."* All this is very good in the abstract — quite 
a fine exhortation ! It is the sense in which Dr. Peck 
represents the onwardness of St. Paul throughout, and the 
scope of his book that constitute the trouble, not only with 
the writer of these arguments, but with the Doctor's read- 
ers in general. The onivardness in the mind of the Doc- 
tor, as one would suppose, was an advancing toward a 
work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, conceived of as 
greater than, and subsequent to, regeneration ; which his 
entire book shows. This, we hold, can not be the mean- 
ing of the phrase, ^'■Let us go on unlo perfection^" Sev- 
eral arguments may be adduced against it. 

1. The Hebrews, to whom this Epistle was written, 
were at that time Christians, and already in the regener- 
ate state, and so, as a work of grace in the heart, pure, 
cleansed in soul; granting that they had not backslidden 

* Christian Perfection, p. 10. 



496 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



from that state, they were all, as to purity of heart, that 
it is conceivable for a man to be at this side of eternal 
glory ; for, as argued before, the word re-generation ad- 
mits of no variance either way; less than this blessing is 
NO regeneration ; more for a soul on earth is impossible. 
It is as unreasonable as to say that Christ, as a Divine 
Being, is more than Divine, since the soul born of God 
is in the moral image of Christ. Col. iii, 10. The reader 
will remember how it has been shown in these arguments 
that our pious brethren who advocate their theory of en- 
tire sanctification, have continually stumbled on this point, 
not being able to say one good thmg of their great and 
extraordinary blessing, that can not be said of regenera- 
tion — this they insensibly and of necessity metamorphose 
into that. 

That the Hebrews were in a regenerate st-ate when the 
apostle wrote to them, is obvious from internal evidence : 
''Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil 
heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But 
exhort one another daily, while it is called to-day ; lest any 
of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For 
w^e are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning 
of our confidence steadfast to the end." Chap, iii, 12-14. 
This is sufiicient proof. The same is acknowledged by all 
who take this Epistle into consideration. Dr. Peck says, 
" The Epistle to the Hebrews is suited to the character of 
such as had been really converted from Judaism, and had 
experimentally 'received the knowledge of the truth.' In 
the opening of the third chapter, the apostle calls those he 
addresses 'holy brethren,' a designation which could with 
no propriety be given to ' the unbelieving Jews,' as is sup- 
posed by Dr. Macknight, but which supposes that they had 
in a good sense ' been once enlightened, and tasted of the 
heavenly gift.' 

Mr. Wesley says of this Epistle, " It was sent to the 

* Christian Perfection, p. 7. 



Arg. XXI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



497 



Jewish Hellenistic Christians dispersed through various 
countries."* Mr. Benson says, "It must have been Avrit- 
ten to the Hebrews, or converts from Judaism to Christi- 
anitj."t Mr. Watson says, " There has been some little 
doubt concerning the persons to whom this Epistle was ad- 
dressed ; but by far the most general and most probable 
opinion is, that it was written to those Christians of 
Judea who had been converted to the Gospel from Juda- 
ism. "J Mr. Horne says, " The Hebrews, to whom this 
Epistle is addressed, were Jewish Christians, residing in 
Palestine. "§ Now, the substance of these statements of 
eminent Biblical scholars and critics is, that the Hebrews 
were already Christians when the Epistle was written to 
them. Consequently, we do not see what need they had 
of going on unto perfection in the sense of a second inter- 
nal blessing, in which signification Dr. Peck and others hold 
the word perfection. For they were "partakers of the 
heavenly calling," and they had "Jesus Christ as their 
Apostle and High-Priest." St. Paul did not urge the He- 
brews on unto Christian perfection so called, but his theme 
was, " Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an 
evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." 
This introduces us to, 

2. The SCOPE of the Epistle which is against Dr. Peck. 
The scope of our Epistle was not to set them to seeking 
Christian perfection, as our brethren interpret the phrase, 
but it was to teach them that they should advance in 
Christian knowledge and experience, as opposed to their 
ignorance respecting JcAvish customs, and the " leaven 
of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy," and that they 
should, as Christians, become strong and full-grown in 
doctrines, especially as the Divinity of our Lord and Sav- 
ior, partaking of " strong meat." The apostle designed 

*See the beginning of his "Notes on the Epistle to the Hebrews." 

t See "Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews." 

f Theological Dictionary, Article Hebrews. 

§ Introduction to the Study of the Bible, p, 338. 

42 



498 EE VIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. [Part II. 



that they should become so acquainted with Christian 
theology as to be confirmed and tJiorougldy-esiahlished 
Christians. The general drift of the Epistle shows that 
the apostle was afraid these Jewish converts to Christian- 
ity would renounce it and go back entirely to Judaism. 
This is shown in the fact that he so powerfully argues 
the Divinity of the Son, by every conceivable and incon- 
trovertible argument most confounding to the Jew, such 
as representing the Son as " heir of all things," as hav- 
ing " made the worlds," as being the " express image " 
of the person of the Father, as " on the right hand of the 
Majesty on high," as having "obtained a more excellent 
name" than the angels, as being so much better than the 
angels, that he never said to one of them, " Thou art my 
Son, this day have I begotten thee," as being "wor- 
shiped" by angels, and as a " Priest," as much better than 
their priests — Moses and Aaron — as the substance is better 
than the shadow. And havinfT thus mao;nified the adora- 
ble name of our great High- Priest, he did not say, "Let 
us go on unto perfection," as a greater work in the heart 
than regeneration, which would have been entirely foreign 
to his design, but he said, " Seeing then that we have a 
great High-Priest, that is passed" into the heavens, Jesus 
the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." 
Besides all this, the apostle is so evidently guarding the 
Hebrews against apostasy from Jesus Christ, the true 
Messiah, the Son of God, the real High-Priest, and all- 
sufficient Savior, as opposed to the high views which the 
Jews held of their merely earthly priests — Closes and 
Aaron — that he warns them faithfull}^ against the aAvful 
consequences of that kind of unbelief to which he saw 
them liable, and which consisted in absolute apostasy. 
For having given the greatest force to his argument, by 
presenting the glorious and Divine character of our ever- 
blessed Lord and Savior, in all his offices, as God, Priest, 
Savior, and Head of his house, the Church, he connects 



Arg. XXI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



499 



his exhortation following with a ^'wherefore," dtd, (dio,) 
on account of which great character of the 3fess{ah, your 
Savior, "as the Holy Ghost saith," in your Scriptures, 
To-day, if ye will hear his voice harden not your hearts 
as " some of your tribes did in the day of temptation in the 
wilderness, when they departed from God ; " So I sware 
in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest. Take 
heed, brethren," for I write to you for this very purpose, 
"lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief," as 
with the Jews of old in the wilderness, " m departing 
from the living GodP Again he says, " So we see that 
they could not enter in because of unbelief;" that is, un- 
belief in the sense of total apostasy from God, Avhich was 
implied in the nature of their murmurings against God. 
See Numbers, chapter xiv. Now that the apostle's Bcojye 
is to urge them not to apostatize, by a renunciation of the 
Divinity of Christ, is plain, because he introduces a pas- 
sage in immediate connection with the text in hand, and 
as a consequence of not " going on unto perfection," in 
the sense in which he designed " perfection " to be under- 
stood, which, so introduced, no theologian can interpret 
consistently with other passages of Holy Writ, and our 
common experience, only on the ground of total apostasy 
in the sense of a denial of the Divinity of the Son of God. 
He says, " For it is impossible for those who were once 
enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were 
made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of 
the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to 
come, if they fall away, to renew them again unto repent- 
ance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God 
afresh, and put him to an open shame." This must be 
interpreted as applied to total and willful apostasy in the 
denial of Christ as the true Messiah and Savior. Mr. 
Wesley says this language refers to "willful total apos- 
tates." Mr. Benson, quoting Pierce, says, " He speaks 
of such only as fell away from the very profession of 



500 



REVIEW OF WESLETAX PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



ChristianitT.'" Dr. Adam Clarke says, Before I proceed 
to explain the different terms in these verses, it is nec- 
essary to give mv opinion of their design and meaning : 
1. I do not consider them as having any reference to 
any person professing Christianity. 2. They do not be- 
long, nor are they applicable, to bacJcsUders of any kind. 
3. They belong to apostates from Christianity; to such 
as reject the ivhole Christian system^ and its Author, the 
Lord Jesus. 4. And to those of them only who join with 
the blaspheming Jews, call Christ an impostor, and vindi- 
cate his murderers in having crucified him as a malefac- 
tor, and thus they render their salvation impossible, by 
unVfuUy and maliciously rejecting the Lord that bought 
them. !?so man believing in the Lord Jesus as the great 
sacrifice for sin, and acknowledging Christianity as a 
Divine revelation, is here intended, though he may have 
unfortunately lachslidden from any degree of the salva- 
tion of Gcod. The design of these solemn words is 
evidently, first, to show the Hebrews that apostasy from 
the highest degrees of grace was possible : and that those 
who were highest in the favor of God might sin against 
him, lose it, and perish everlastingly. . . . ^Secondly, 
to warn them against such an awful state of perdition, 
that they might not he led away, hy either the persuasions 
or persecutions of their countrymen, from the truth of the 
heavenly doctrine which had heen delivered to them.'^ 

We see, therefore, that the internal evidence found in 
the Epistle itself, as interpreted^ too, by learned comment- 
ators, proves that the scope of the passage was to warn the 
Hebrew Christians against final and willful apostasy. This 
is also the view which great men take of the tchole Epistle 
as to its general scope. Mr. Benson says, " The manifest 
design of St. Paul in this Epistle was to confirm the Jew- 
ish Christians in the faith and practice of the Grospel of 
Christ, from which they were in danger of apostatizing, 
either through the insinuations or ill treatment of their 



Arg. XXI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



501 



persecutors, or to recover such as had apostatized."* Mr. 
Watson sajs, " The general design of this Epistle was to 
confirm the Jewish Christians in the faith and practice of 
the Gospel, which they might be in danger of deserting, 
either through the persuasion or persecution of the unbe- 
lieving Jews, who were very numerous and powerful in 
Jud€a."t The reader will please read his whole article. 
Mr. Horne says, " The occasion of writing this Epistle will 
be sufficiently apparent from an attentive review of its 
contents. The Jews did every thing in their power to 
withdraw their brethren, who had been converted, from 
the Christian faith; to specious arguments, drawn from the 
excellency of the Jewish religion, they added others more 
cogent, namely, persecution and menaces. The object of 
the apostle, therefore, in writing this letter, is to show the 
Deity of Jesus Christ, and the excellency of his Gospel, 
when compared with the institutions of Moses ; to prevent 
the Hebrews, Jewish converts, from relapsing into those 
rites and ceremonies which were now abolished; and to 
point out their total insufficiency as a means of reconcili- 
ation and atonement. The reasonings are interspersed 
with numerous solemn and affectionate warnings and ex- 
hortations, addressed to different descriptions of persons."]; 

From common consent, then, of learned men, we find 
that the general scope or design which the apostle had in 
view was to prevent the Hellenistic Jews who had em- 
braced the Christian religion from absolute apostasy ; and 
"leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and going 
on unto perfection," is opposed to this fearful and willful 
apostasy. It is not opposed to common backsliding ; much 
less is it opposed to the ivant of the second internal bless- 
ing, which some call " entire sanctifi cation." And, if op- 
posed to absolute apostasy in the sense already shown, it 

* See his Preface to the Hebrews. 

f Theological Dictionary, Article Hebrews. 

X Home's Introduction to the Study of the Bible, p. 338. 



502 



EEYIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



does not mean unto perfecti07\SiS a second work in the soul, 
but it signifies, as the apostle says — chap, iv, 14 — " Hold- 
ing FAST OUR profession" of Christianity, as the scope 
of the passage teaches, by a perfection in Christian knowl- 
edge and theology, to such a high degree that a Jewish 
teacher, seeking to proselyte, could not overthrow the 
faith and destroy the Christian confidence of those so per- 
fectly skilled in Christian doctrine. Infidelity, total apos- 
tasy, and common backsliding are the legitimate ofi'springs 
of ignorance. And if the human mind was thoroughly 
acquainted with the sure foundation upon which the Chris- 
tian religion rests, w^e are at a loss to see how it could, in 
the vast majority of instances at least, ever be shaken 
therefrom ; for there is no subject of human thought what- 
ever, requiring evidence to sustain its worth, and to insure 
to it the commendation of the intelligent, that affords one- 
tenth of the strong testimony in its favor that Christianity 
does. All this St. Paul well knew. He accordingly laid 
before the Hebrews the perfections of then' Lord and 
Savior Jesus Christ, knowing that if they were well 
instructed in this, the foundation of Christianity, they 
would war a good warfare against their strongest foes. 

3. The doctrine that makes the " perfection " mentioned 
in our text internal, and additional to the new birth, is con- 
trary to the immediate context. The reader should consider 
the fifth and sixth chapters of this Epistle as undivided ; 
then he should begin to quote at verse 12 of chapter five, 
where the apostle begins to reprove the Hebrews for their 
ignorance in knowing so little in consideration of the length 
of time since they first embraced Christianity. "For when 
for the time ye ought to be teachers, [of Christian theology, 
not Christian perfection as an inward work,] ye have need 
that one teach you again which be the first principles of 
the oracles of God; and are become such as have need 
of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that 
useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness, 



Arg. XXI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



503 



[a7:eipn<; loyou dr/.aioffw-qq^ a, (alj)ha,) private, and -slpa, (pcl- 
ra,) 2^'i^(^icHce, hence unpracticed as to the doctrine of justi- 
fication;'] for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to 
the [reA^fcyy, teleio7i\ perfect^ even those who by reason of 
use have their senses exercised to discern both good and 
evil. Therefore [on account of luhich state of ignorance ye 
are in ivlio use ' milk,^ and on account of strong ' meat^ he- 
longing to the p)erfect^ leaving \_a(fivTsq rw r^? «/>z^? toD 
XpKTToo XoYov^ having put away the doctrine, represented hy 
milk, of the beginning of Christ, that is, rudimentary 
Christian theology] let us go on unto perfection, rry^ 
r^ltwrr^ra cptp6iitOa^ unto the pcrfcctness, in hioiuledge rep- 
resented hy strong meat, let us hear ourselves along f] not 
laying again the foundation of repentance from dead 
works, [such as luill he the case if we p>ut aivay Christ, the 
true Messiah, luho is noiu our Savior, and go hack hy total 
apostasy to 3Ioses, luhom I have shotun to he inferior, as a 
priest, to Christ our great High-Pkiest ivho has passed into 
the heavens; for every 07ie loho goes hack hy apostasy must 
again lay the foundation repentance, if ever saved,] and of 
faith toward God. . . . And this we will do if God 
permit, [that is, weiuill go on unto perfection in knoivledge]. 
For [if we do not advance in knoivledge unto a completeness 
in Christian theology, so as to he ahle to ivUltstand all Juda- 
izing and false teachers] it is impossible for those who 
were once enlightened, etc. . . . And [verses 11, 12] 
we desire that every one of you do show the same dili- 
gence to the full assurance of hope unto the end; that 
ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through 
faith and patience inherit the promises." 

Now, all this seems to be plain, as a context, not to 
teach any thing like perfection in the sense in which 
some have taught it. Moreover, if the apostle taught 
Christian perfection, as some of our brethren hold it, in 
this text, why did he pray God, in chap, xiii, 21, to make 
the Hebrews "perfect in every good work, to do his will, 



504 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, 
through Jesus Christ?" If the phrase. Let us go on unto 
perfection^ means something greater within than regen- 
eration, then this quotation from the last chapter of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews teaches a perfection consisting in 
" every good work." So, then, there are two perfections. 
Is it not much better to make the former a perfection in 
knowledge, as the context shows it to be, and so give it 
a context, than to make it a perfection of internal grace, 
which the Hebrews already had, as believers, and to give 
it no context — no scope ? 

4. The etymology of the word -ztltw-r^ra^ {teleioteta^ per- 
fection, is against those who maintain that it means an 
inward work of grace. This Greek noun is derived from 
the adjective rileux;^ (teleios,) perfect, already considered. 
This adjective we did not find in any one instance, in the 
nineteen where it occurs in the New Testament, to signify 
perfect, as applied to a moral work in the heart. We 
found its most general meaning to be exactly what Dr. 
Adam Clarke in many places gives it; namely, " jTAor- 
oughly iiistructed.'^^ It is a law of etymology, as to this 
class of Greek nouns, that they "express the abstract 
of the adjective,"^ which is the root. But since the 
adjective applies to a man perfect as to a knowledge of 
Christian doctrines, the abstract can not mean an inward 
work of moral purity. Such in no sense whatever belongs 
to the word. Hence the meaning is, "Let us go on to 
perfection " in Christian doctrines and understanding. 
This is a point which can not be overlooked without doing 
violence to the language in which the New Testament was 
written — without borrowino^ a meanincr for the word of 
which it is etymologically destitute. And, further, the 
word is found but once in the New Testament besides the 
text in question. This we have already considered in this 
argument. We found that it means a perfection as to the 

* See Crosby's Greek Grammar, § 308. 



Arc. XXI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



505 



fruit of a regenerated heart, and not as to the inward work 
itself. This ought to count at least something in our favor 
in the exegesis of this passage. 

5. The opinions of great men and Biblical critics are 
against our brethren who teach an inAvard grace from our 
text. Dr. Edward Robinson, one of the ablest of modern 
Biblical critics, in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New 
Testament under the article rs/^jorr^r, teleiotes, gives these 
words, " £-} rr/> TsXsiozrjTa (fspcu/j.sOa, that is, leaving the rudi- 
ments of the Christian doctrine, let us go on to something 
n.ore complete, perfect." Mr. Greenfield, in his Lexicon 
of the New Testament, on the word, says, " Something 
perfect or complete, perfect doctrine or instruction, Heb. 
vi, 1." Here, observe, he quotes the very text. The 
w^ord means completeness^ as opposed to an unfinished state 
or condition; not necessarily completeness in moral, inter- 
nal purity as opposed to an internal and moral defection. 
Dr. Adam Clarke says, " Let us never rest till we are 
adult Christians.^^ No doubt he means adult as to knowl- 
edge. Mr. Benson, on the expression, Let us go on unto 
'perfection, says, " Unto a perfect acquaintance with the 
more sublime and difficult truths, and the higher privi- 
leges and duties of Christianity." Dr. Thomas Coke 
says, " Therefore, leaving the principles — laying aside, com- 
paratively speaking, the doctrines which were taught you 
when you were first initiated into Christianity. The apostle 
means what in the preceding chapter were called elements, 
or first principles of the oracles of God. Verse 12. Let 
us go on to perfection, TsXscozrjra ; to that state of knowl- 
edge, experience, and practice to which the following doc- 
trines are designed to lead; searching with industry and 
diligence what the Word of God has taught concerning 
Christ." Professor Moses Stuart, of Andover, thus trans- 
lates and comments on our text: "Wherefore, leaving 
the first principles of Christian doctrine, let us advance 
toward a mature state, [of religious knowledge;] not 



506 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



laying again the foundation of repentance from works 
which cause death," etc. The words in brackets are Mr. 
Stuart's. "I understand the reasoning of the apostle 
thus : Wherefore, that is, since ziXtwt^ {the perfect,) only 
are capable of arepia rpo(p-q, (solid food;) namely, of re- 
ceiving, digesting, and duly appropriating the higher and 
more difficult doctrines of Christianity, and since ye are 
yet but '^rj-cot, (babes,) although ye ought to be advanced 
in Christian knowledge, if regard be had to the long time 
that ye have professed the Christian religion, v, 12-14; 
did, (therefore) it becomes you to quit this state of immatur- 
ity, this vr^-orijra, (state of infancy^ and advance to a 
mature state, to a zeXetorrira (perfection) The reasoning 
is plain, when thus understood, and the connection palpa- 
ble. . . . The meaning here I take to be this, ' Quit- 
ting the mere initial state of pupilage, advance toward a 
mature state of instruction and knowledge;' or ^Make 
such advances that it shall be unnecessary to repeat 
elemeyitary instruction in the principles of Christianity. 
Verses 2, 3.' " The opinions of the learned are truly 
clear on this passage. How any one could make this text 
the motto of a whole book on the doctrine of an imvard 
work, as additional in the soul to regeneration, is really 
something which we can not understand. 

6. If the phrase. Let us go on unto i^erfection, means a 
high degree of moral purity in the soul, as some seem 
to regard it, such interpreters bring themselves into 
difficulty and inconsistency to such an extent as never to 
be able to extricate themselves ; for, the not going on unto 
perfection, in this particular case, is to fall away entirely 
and to absolutely apostatize ; which is shown, 

(1.) By the exhortation itself connected with our text, 
as well as the context and scope of the whole Epistle as 
already shown. 

(2.) All our commentators agree to this effect, namely, 
that not to go on unto perfection, in the sense in which 



Arg. XXI.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



507 



the apostle used the phrase, is virtually to apostatize 
totally from God. 

(3.) Dr. Peck, our received author on Christian perfec- 
tion as a second work of grace in the soul, says, "Leav- 
ing ' first principles,' and going on unto perfection, is the 
ONLY way to be secure against final and total apos- 
tasy."* 

Now, the case stands thus, as deducible from the posi- 
tion of Dr. Peck. The subject who is regenerated, when 
the perfection taught in our text is taken as an inward 
work, on the supposition of this second blessing not being 
obtained, relapses into final and total apostasy.''' But 
" final and total " apostates will, as such, most certainly 
be eternally lost, which on the Doctor's words, above 
quoted, would be the inevitable destiny of the regenerated 
man who had neglected to go on unto his kind of perfec- 
tion. This view is contradicted, 

(1.) By Dr. Peck himself; for on page 31 of his work 
he says, " It is most absurd to suppose that a justified soul 
can he lost, without having forfeited his justification by 
backsliding. If this is so, why does the Doctor teach 
that a soul must either advance unto perfection so as to 
obtain it, in his own sense of the word, or else be inse- 
cure against " final and total apostasy," if he does not 
go on to perfection, which apostasy implies the loss of 
the soul? That is, the Doctor's position, when analyzed, 
seems to amount to this : (a) A justified soul will be 
saved if he do not backslide. But, (5) If he do not go 
on unto perfection, and obtain a greater work in his soul 
than that connected with justification, he must backslide, 
and become a "final and total" apostate, since "leaving 
^ first principles,' and going on unto perfection, is the 
only way to be secure against final and total apos- 
tasy." 

(2.) Perfection, as held by Dr. Peck, would be abso- 

Christian Perfection, p. 23. 



508 



REVIEW OF WESLEY AN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



LUTELY necessary to our entering into eternal glory, which 
is contrary, first, to the Doctor's own words above, where 
he admits the salvation of men merely justified; sec- 
ondly, it is contrary to Scripture; for, (a) The Abra- 
hamic covenant offers no greater blessing as an internal 
work than regeneration, as is plain from the manner in 
which St. Paul speaks of the justification of Abraham, 
and connects our salvation with it under the same cove- 
nant. (5) Verse 12 of the preceding chapter seems to 
contradict the Doctor's whole theory ; for it teaches two 
things in particular. First. That, let the perfection of 
our text mean what it may, it was such as could be com- 
municated by a teacher, a mere mortal man ; for he says, 
"Ye have need that one teach you." Second. The 
doctrine implied in the word " perfection," is clearly 
taught by the phrase " first principles of the oracles of 
God " — verse 12 — and the expression " word of right- 
eousness " — verse 13 — in which they were " unskillful." 
These points teach us that the Holy Ghost, by whom 
one is said to be " wholly sanctified," would in the one 
case be set aside by the teacher, and in the other instance 
the perfection consists in nothing more than to be skillful 
in the ivord of righteousness, as opposed to the unskillful- 
ness wherein the apostle's complaint against them rested. 



ARGUMENT XXII. 

TeXsioco — TELEIOO. 

The verb tsXsloo), (teleioo,) to make perfect, is found 
twenty-four times in the New Testament. Since it is 
akin to the words already considered, and since it may 
be thought to convey the idea of Christian perfection, as 
some use the phrase, it is proper to give it a brief consid- 



Arg. XXII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 509 

eration. This verb, etjmologicallj, being derived from 
the adjective riXecoc, (teleios,) perfect, means, " To make 
that which is pointed out by the primitive, as dy^Xoc, (delos,) 
evident, drjXow, (delod,) to make evident"^^ etc. Our verb, 
then, radically means to make perfect. But this being an 
abstract idea, the context, in most instances, must fix the 
meaning of the word as used by the inspired writers. We 
will now examine, briefly, the passages where it is found, 
to see if, in any of them, it signifies to make perfect, as 
a second work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. In John 
iv, 34, V, 36, and xvii, 4, it is translated by the English 
verb to finish, and is spoken of Christ finishing his work. 
In Luke xiii, 32, And the third day I shall be per- 
fected." The middle voice of the Greek verb is here 
used, and spyov, work, is likely understood. Dr. Robin- 
son states it thus : " Middle, with epyov, work, implied 
Luke xiii, 32, xai rjf rpirrj reXetooixai, I finish the work." 
It can not here mean perfection, as such, for Christ had 
no sin. In Acts xx, 24, it is finish : " So that I might 
finish my course with joy." In Luke ii, 43, it is ful- 
filled : " And when they had fulfilled the days." In 
John xix, 28, it is used of events and of Scripture ; here 
it occurs twice. "Jesus knowing that all things were^ 
now accomplished, that the Scripture might be ful- 
filled, saith, I thirst." In John xvii, 23, Christ prays 
that his disciples " may be made perfect in one." The 
meaning is just the same as that of St. Paul, w^here he 
says, " Only let your conversation be as it becometh the 
Gospel of Christ, . . . that ye may stand fast in 
ONE SPIRIT, WITH ONE MIND, » Striving together for the 
faith of the Gospel." Phil, i, 27. And as it is ex- 
pressed in Romans xv, 6, "Now the God of patience and 
consolation grant you to BE like-minded one toward 
ANOTHER, according to Christ Jesus : that ye may with 
one mind and one mouth glorify God." This is certainly 

* Crosby's Greek Grammar, I 318. 



510 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the meaning of being " made prrfect in one." It means 
a perfection in love toivard one another, for it is written, 
" If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love 
IS perfected in us." 1 John iv, 12. This passage, 
therefore, in John xvii, 23, argues nothing for Christian 
perfection, as internal, but it answers exactly to the view 
which we have taken of the subject all through these 
arguments. In 2 Cor. xii, 9, " My strength is made 
perfect in weakness," it is spoken of the power of God. 

That is, my power shows itself perfect in weakness, ap- 
pears then as the true power of God." (Dr. Robinson.) 

James ii, 22 : " Seest thou how faith wrought with his 
works, and by works was faith made perfect ?" Here it 
means perfection by works, as the fruit of justifying 
faith — the very doctrine which we have been advocating 
from the beginning of this w^ork. In this text it is faith 
that is made perfect, and a perfect faith is all that God 
requires of any man, as such ; we do not mean perfect in 
the sense of justification or pardon merely, but, also, as 
it is here spoken of Abraham, a perfection of works, sub- 
sequent to regeneration, a shoiving by acts after pardon 
of sin, that from the moment of such pardon unto all sub- 
sequent life, faith has been, and is, perfect. In this 
instance it was about twenty-five years after the justifica- 
tion of the patriarch. 

Reader, please observe, Christian perfection is every- 
where presented to us in the Bible as the fruit of regen- 
eration, either works or knowledge, which in fact are 
virtually the same, since knowledge is a result arising 
from a proper course of -life. 1 John ii, 5: "Whoso 
keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God per- 
fected." This text contains the same doctrine of a 
Christian being perfect in love. It is obvious that this 
perfection consists in, or is manifested hj, keeping his 
word; that is, in fulfilling the whole moral law as a dem- 
onstration of a heart previously made pure by the Holy 



Arg. XXII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



511 



Spirit. " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," 
as the proof of being born of God. Men may talk as they 
please, and say what they please about us, for not follow- 
ing human opinions on this question, but there is no 
higher degree of grace in the soul, no other blessing 
than simply to he horn of God. And the non-committing 
of sin, as the test thereof, is Christian perfection. 1 John 
iv, 12 : " If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and 
his love IS perfected in us." Here is perfected love, which 
is all that an individual can have, all that we can conceive 
of, and it is made to depend simply on the phrase, " If we 
love one another.''^ If we love God supremely, and our 
neighbor as ourselves, for his sake, these two points 
fulfill the whole moral law ; and doing these as the fruit 
of our faith in Christ, thereby that faith and love are per- 
fected, are proved, are shown to be approved of God. 
Such is Christian perfection. Less falls short of it — more 
can not be. This is the substance of these arguments. 
Will any one object to this doctrine? Can a good man 
object to it? 

1 John iv, 17 : Herein is our love made perfect, 
. . . because as he is so are we in this world." The 
word "herein" refers to the preceding verse, which says, 
"He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in 
him." Hence the love of God, which is " shed abroad in 
the heart" of every one who is regenerated, is perfected; 
that is, shows and proves itself such by that regenerated 
person dwelling in God. This dwelling in God is a course 
and habit of life which the Christian puts on as the 
mark, result, or fruit of regeneration ; and, of course, it 
consists in the observance of the Divine law ; for, " If ye 
keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love." 
John XV, 10. Hence Christian perfection again is shown 
in the Scripture to consist in a certain oiitivard act as the 
test of the new birth. The same use of the word is found 
in verse 18: "He that feareth is not made perfect in 



512 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PEEFECTIOX. 



[Part II. 



love. If he dwelt in God as above stated, his love would 
then be perfect, and he would have no fear. Heb. vii, 19 : 
" For the law made nothing perfect." Savs Dr. Robin- 
son, " That is, the Mosaic law could make no perfect ex- 
piation." This he proves by reference to verse 11 : " If, 
therefore, perfection [which he defines, in its proper 
place, 'perfect expiation'] were by the Levitical priest- 
hood, . . . what further need was there that another 
priest should arise?" He further proves his meaning of 
our word in vii, 19, by chapter x, 4: "For it is impossi- 
ble that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away 
sins." Hence the text under consideration may be para- 
phrased thus : For the law, by sacrificing bulls and goats, 
can make no perfect or real expiation for sin." Heb. ix, 
9 : Sacrifices that could not make him that did the 
service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." Here 
Dr. Robinson again speaks : That is, which could never 
make full expiation for the bringer, so as to satisfy his 
conscience." Heb. x, 1: "For the law having a shadow 
of good things to come . . . can never . 
make the comers thereunto perfect." This passage, like 
the others, stands in Dr. Robinson's definition, " To make 
full expiation for any one." This seems to be the only 
meaning it can have here. St. Paul at this place, in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, is not contending for what is 
called Christian perfection, in books of theology, but he 
is showing that Christ, the true Messiah, as a High-Priest, 
could and did make a full expiation for sin with his own 
blood, which the Levitical priests could not do with the 
blood of bulls and of goats. 

Heb. X, 14: "For by one ofi*ering he hath perfected 
forever them that are sanctified." This verse is referred 
to by Dr. Robinson under his definition, " To make full 
exp)iation for any one." Dr. Adam Clarke is very clear 
on the phrase. Tie hath perfected forever. He says, " He 
has procui'ed remission of sins and holiness : for it is well 



Arg. XXII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



513 



observed here, and in several parts of this Epistle, that 
ztXeiou), (teleioo,) to make perfect^ is the same as aczoiv 
aixdpTKDv Tzotsr^, to procure remission of siiis." 

Heb. ii, 10: " For it became him . . . in brinjiinnr 
many sons unto glorj, to make the Captain of their sal- 
vation perfect through sufferings." This passage makes 
Christ perfect "who knew no sin," and hence it is not 
Christian perfection, as this phrase has generally been 
used; but it is a proof of the view which we take of that 
doctrine, for Christ was perfected through suffering ; and, 
"it is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master, 
and the servant as his Lord ; if they have called the master 
of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call 
them of his household ?" Dr. Robinson defines the word 
in question in this place, " To carry through to the end in 
respect to condition." The Captain of cur salvation ivas 
carried through to the end by means of sufferings. Dr. 
Adam Clarke, in giving a paraphrase from Dr. Dodd con- 
taining the substance of what Dr. Doddridge, Pierce, and 
Owen have said on this verse, says God is pleased " to 
make and constitute Jesus, his first-begotten and well- 
beloved Son, the Leader and Prince of their salvation ; 
and to make him perfect^ or completety fit for the full ex- 
ecution of his office, hy a long train of various and extreme 
sufferings, whereby he was, as it were, solemnly conse- 
crated to it." " Consecrate'' is also one of the meanings 
which Rev. John Groves gives the word. We have said 
this much on this passage, not that it was needed here, 
but to give a more general idea of the meaning of the 
word affecting the whole subject. 

Heb. V, 9 : " And being made perfect, he became the 
author of eternal salvation." No comment is here needed. 

Heb. xi, 40 : " God having provided some better thing 
for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." 
Dr. Robinson says the word is here used " of saints 
advanced to glory." Dr. Adam Clarke and Mr. Benson 



514 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



have both hit the meaning of the apostle, we think, exactly 
on this text, in which they substantially agree. We will 
quote the former as sufficient. ''Believers before the 
flood, after the flood, under the law, and since the law, 
make but one Church. The Gospel dispensation is the 
last; and the Church can not be considered as complete 
till the believers under all dispensations are gathered to- 
gether. As the Gospel is the last dispensation, the pre- 
ceding believers can not be consummated even in glory till 
the Gospel Church arrive in the heaven of heavens." 

Heb. xii, 23 : '' But ye are come ... to the spirits 
of just men made perfect." Like in the last text. Dr. 
Robinson says that the word perfect is here used " of 
saints advanced to glory." If any one say that this 
passage proves the doctrine of Christian perfection, as 
some great internal work, then it will prove too much; 
for it speaks of the spirits of just men made perfect. 
We have before shown that a just person is one justified, 
and having the Divine image in his heart. Col. iii, 10. 
Therefore, if perfection means a complete spiritual work 
within, then, not to say that it is absurd, it is surely 
beyond our comprehension. But if we understand per- 
fection to mean a development of the outward graces, 
which are all implied in the one word love, as proceeding 
from a pure heart, then the impending expression becomes 
perfectly plain. It may be further observed, that the 
Scripture no where allows us to conceive of a perfect 
man, in any other light than in that of his keeping the 
moral law as the proof of inward grace. Hence, in this 
passage it speaks directly of the spirits of JUST men 
made perfect. The Greek scholar will also take notice 
that the word rersXeiw/jJvwv, ''made perfect,^ is in the 
perfect tense, to indicate that the "spirits of the just" 
had been made perfect, as to outward deportment while 
on earth, in the sense just given, and that they are 
perfect yet. A hint at this principle of the Greek Ian- 



Arg. XXII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



515 



guage will here suffice, as we will have occasion to use 
it more fully hereafter. 

Phil, iii, 12 : " Not as though I had already attained, 
either were already perfect." On this text we need 
advance no arguments to prove that it does not mean 
Christian perfection, as such, for our commentators, them- 
selves in favor of the doctrine, do not hold it here. Their 
views, therefore, will suit us. Mr. Benson says, '^TsrsXei- 
o/xac, perfected, complete, or had finished my course of 
duty and sufferings. It appears from verse 15 that there 
is a difference between one that is riXswq^ per/ec^, and one 
that is perfected; the one is fitted for the race, the other 
has finished the race, and is ready to receive the prize." 
In this latter sense we understand the word in this text. 
Pr. Adam Clarke says, " I am not yet crowned, in conse- 
quence of having suffered martyrdom. I am quite sat- 
isfied that the apostle here alludes to the Olympic games ; 
and the word rsreXsiwixac, teteleiomaiy is the proof; for 
TsXeiwdrj'^at, teleiothenai, is spoken of those who have 
completed their race, reached the goal, and are honored 
with the prize. Thus it is used by Philo Allegoriar, lib. 
iii, p. 101, Edit. Mangey, Udrs obv & (pox^, ixaXiaxa vs^po- 
(popeiv (vupo(p6psv/) ffsdurrf^ OTtoXfjipfj ; apays ou^ orav reXsLioOrjc; 
xai ^pa(ieiujy xai ar&ipdvuiv a^i6dr^<;^ 'When is it, SOul, that 

thou shalt appear to have the victory? Is it not when 
thou shalt he perfected — have completed thy course by 
death — and be honored with prizes and crowns?'" We 
have now examined briefly, but we think sufficiently to 
render satisfaction, the twenty-four passages of Scripture 
where the word r^Xztou}, (teleioo^ to perfect, is found; and 
we presume the reader will agree with us, that we have no 
reason in any case to so interpret it as to import Christian 
perfection, as a second blessing. We may here, in a word, 
add the noun rzXsiuxTLq, teleiosis, derived from this verb, and, 
of course, partaking of the meaning of its root. It occurs 
but twice in the New Testament. In Luke i, 45, it is 



516 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



translated '■^ performance.^^ In this place Dr. Robinson 
defines it fulfillment.^^ In Heb. vii, 11, it is translated 
'•^ jperfedion^^ where Dr. Robinson defines it perfect expia- 
tion.^^ Here ends our investigation of these words of 
kindred meaning, in which we do not find one clear proof- 
passage of what some call Christian perfection. Reader, 
please examine us carefully ; for if we have erred any 
where in our exegesis, it is of the head and not of the 
heart. "VYe aim to teach by argument and not to assail the 
truth by mere assertion. 



ARGUMENT XXIII. 

KarapziZco — KATARTIZO. 

We now present the y.a-ap-'Xuj^ katartizo, argument. 
This word occurs in the New Testament thirteen times. 
It is variously translated. It is first used " properly of 
what is broken, injured," and is defined "^o re/i^, to re- 
pair, to mend, and this is the more common classic 
usage." (Dr. Robinson.) 

Matt, iv, 21 : "He saw James and John mending their 
nets." 

Mark i, 19 : " He saw James and John ... in 
the ship MENDING their nets." It is spoken " tropically 
of persons in error, to restore, to set right,^' (Dr. Robin- 
son,) as in 

Gal. vi, 1 : If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye 
which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of 
meekness." Ye which are spiritual, perfect such a one by 
acts of love and kindness. The word also means " to 
furnish fully, to 7nake perfect, that is, such as one should 
be, deficient in no part,'' (Dr. Robinson,) as in 

1 Pet. V, 10 : " The Grod of all grace, who hath called 



Arg. XXIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



517 



US unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that yo 
have suffered awhile, make you perfect, stablish, strength- 
en, settle you." The word here no more means " per- 
fect/' as an inward work additional to regeneration, than 

stablish," strengthen," " settle " do. They all convey 
about the same idea. Dr. Adam Clarke, on the word, 
says, " Put you in complete joints as the timbers of a 
building." Again he says, " All these phrases [the ones 
in the above quotation] are architectural." Mr. Benson 
says, " That no defect may remain in your Christian 
knowledge, experience, or practice." 

2 Cor. xiii, 11 : " Finally, brethren, farewell. Be per- 
fect^ be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace." 
The phrase "be perfect," in this text, is, no doubt, the 
same in sense as the phrases "live in peace," and "be 
of one mind," or as the good wish, " farewell." The 
parts *of such passages must agree in their exposition. 
The clause "be perfect," Dr. Adam Clarke explains thus: 
Be compact, get into joint again; let unity and harmony 
be restored." Surely there is nothing in this passage to 
teach Christian perfection, as such, for the context is 
against it. It is in our favor."^ 

Heb. xiii, 21 : " The God of peace . . . make you 
PERFECT in every good work, to do his will, working in 
you that which is well pleasing in his sight." Here is a 
perfection taught; but like the numerous passages already 
examined in our favor, it means the fruit of saving and 
living faith. It tells plainly in what the perfection is to 
consist, namely, "in every good work." Mr. Benson 
says the expression implies "the apostle's desire that 
they might omit no good work which it was in their 
power to perform, and that they should do every one in 

* It is a singular thing that Dr. Peck has made this text a proof of his 
view of Christian perfection. See his work, p. 207. It is enough to say- 
that the meaning of the word, the context, the scope, comments, and every 
thing else pertaining to fair exegesis, are against him. 



518 



EEYIETT OF WESLETAX PERFECTIOX. [Part II. 



the most perfect manner; namely, according to God's will 
as theii* rule, from love to Jiim as their j^^i^^oipal, with an 
eye to his glory as their end.'' Here is the doctrine that 
we advance coming up again. The apostle prays God to 
onaJce the Hebrew Christians which perfection he 

limits to EVERY GOOD work; and this commentator so de- 
fines it, beino: one of the stroncrest advocates of what is 
termed Christian perfection in our Church. See Professor 
Moses Stuart on this passage. Xow, while we argue that 
perfection consists in good works, as significant of a pure 
heart, and have argued this doctrine all through the Bible, 
from the first of Genesis to the Epistles, we can not help 
but think that our view is correct. We find it abundantly- 
supported. The passages commonly used in proof of 
other opinions give way to fair investigation. 

1 Cor. i, 10. Here we will give our own translation: 
" And I beseech you, brethren, , . . that ye all 
speak the same thing, and that there be not among you 
schisms, but that ye be perfected in the same mind, and 
in the same judgment." Here is a purity of life — a per- 
fection spoken of as consisting in sameness of mind, and 
of judgmetH, and not in some internal purity of heart 
over and above regeneration. 

1 Thess. iii, 10 : " Night and day praying exceedingly 
that we might see your face, and might perfect that 
which is lacking in your faith." If this text should be 
so construed as to teach internal perfection, then it is the 
work of St. Paul and not of the Holy Spirit ; for the 
apostle wished to see them and to perfect them himself. 
Dr. Adam Clarke understood this text to teach a perfec- 
tion consisting in good works. He says, " That I might 
have the opportunity of giving you the fullest instruc- 
tions in the doctrine of Christ; that ye might have every 
thing in the most ample detail; so that the great outlines 
of truth which you already know may be filled up, that 
ye may he perfectly fitted to every good word and worlt^ 



Arg. XXIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



519 



Rom. ix, 22 : Vessels of wrath fitted to destruc- 
tion " — perfected (xaxripri(Ttj.ha) for destruction. Here is 
perfection, but it is the perfection of the wicked. Pharaoh 
was one of these vessels of wrath. He perfected himself 
in wickedness till God destroyed him. perfection 
was just the opposite of Christian perfection ; that is, it 
consisted in breaking the commands of the Almighty as 
the fruit of a sinful soul, instead of keeping them from a 
pure heart. 

Matt, xxi, 16 : " Out of the mouth of babes and suck- 
lings IIAST thou PERFECTED praise." 

Heb. X, 5 : "A body IIAST thou prepared [xarrjpriffw^ 

pe7fected~\ for me." 

Heb. xi, 3 : " Through faith we understand that the worlds 
WERE FRAMED [xarrjprtffdat, perfected] by the word of God." 

Luke vi, 40 : The disciple is not above his master ; 

but every one that is perfect [xarrjpTtff/xivoq . . . effzac, 

shall be perfected^'] shall be as his master." We are to 
be like our Master in acts of love and mercy to our 
neighbors, as he has told us in his Sermon on the Mount. 
Part of that sermon we have already argued at length. 
" Ye shall be perfect like as your Father in heaven is per- 
fect.^' Similar to this are the words of St. Paul : " Now 
the God of peace . . . make you perfect in every 
good work, to do his will, working in you that which is 
well pleasing in his sight Now, let us compare these 
passages in their true sense, as to the doctrine which they 
teach. The similar words, taken from the Sermon on the 
Mount, teach that acts of love, as the fruit of a regen- 
erated heart, constitute Christian perfection. The passage 
quoted from the last chapter of Hebrews represents St. 
Paul as praying that the Hebrew Christians, already re- 
generated in heart, may be perfect in three respects, each 
of which, individually taken, embraces the moral law. 1. 
Their perfection is to be in every good work. This would 

* See the margin of our reference Bibles. 



^ 520 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



fulfill the whole moral law. 2. It is to do his will, which 
is the moral law itself. 3. It is to work in them that 
which is well pleasing in his sight. Such is obedience to 
the moral law. In these things one is a j^f^^'fict Christian. 
In these he is like, or imitates, Christ. So, " the disciple 
is not above his Master;" for his Master — Christ — being 
God manifested in the flesh w^as a 'perfect Teacher. But 
the disciple being human, and to no small extent igno- 
rant, must be thoroughly instructed ; if he begin to teach 
without this thorough instruction, he will be " above his 
Master." Therefore, "He spake a parable unto them; 
Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall 
into the ditch? The disciple is not above his Master; but 
every one that is perfect shall be as his Master." It 
may be translated, Every one shall he fitted, prepared, 
or fully furnished (in knowledge to teach others) like as 
his Master. Rev. Richard Watson appears to the point 
on this text. He says, " These are golden sayings of our 
Lord, a sort of text on which no doubt he enlarged in the 
discourse. To be perfect, in a disciple of Christ, is TO BE 

FULLY INSTRUCTED IN HIS LoRD's DOCTRINE, AND IN SPIRIT 

AND TEMPER FULLY CONFORMED TO IT, or what he himself, 
in another place, calls being ' sanctified by the tr.uth,' 
xaTapTc^st'^, is to compact or knit together; hence to make 
ready, to perfect, and, applied to teaching, fully to 
instruct. Every fully -instructed disciple, therefore, shall 
be as his Master ; in other words, the end of our disciple- 
ship is to be made like Christ, and this shall be the glo- 
rious result, if we continue to follow him. ' The mind 
that was in Christ ' shall be in us ; and it is only as we 
advance in this state of conformity to our Savior, that we 
approve ourselves as his true disciples. For as every 
^qv^qg\\j -instructed or p)repared disciple thinks, wills, and 
acts in the same manner as his Master, so are we to 
THINK, WILL, and ACT* like Christ." (Exposition on our 

* The capital letters are Mr. Watson's own. 



Arg. XXIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 



521 



text.) Any one can see that Mr. Watson's exposition 
here teaches Christian perfection to consist in imitating 
Christ ; the very thing that we have abundantly set forth 
throughout these arguments. The views of Dr. Adam 
Clarke on this passage are to the same effect. This fin- 
ishes our remarks on all the thirteen passages containing 
the word in question. 

It is proper here to mention two nouns derived from this 
word, each of which occurs in the New Testament but 
once; one is xardpnfft^y (katartisis,) ^'perfection, that is, 
the being made or becoming perfect. 2 Cor. xiii, 9." 
(Dr. Robinson.) " Properly the act of repairing, refor- 
mation, perfection, state of being perfect." (Greenfield.) 
"Repair, amendment, restoration, correction, perfection, 
completion." (Groves.) " An adjusting, restoring, a pre- 
paring, training." (Liddell and Scott.) The text reads, 

This also we wish, even your perfection." The context, 
as seen in verse 10, shows that St. Paul wrote this for 
the " edification " of the Corinthians, that is, to strengthen 
and estabUsh them in brotherly love and Christian unity. 
For he says, ''Being absent, lest being present I should 
use sharpness " — " / ivould rehuJce you, perhaps, for not 
walking as becometh Christiaiis.^^ Dr. Adam Clarke gives 
no countenance to this passage meaning Christian perfec- 
tion as a second blessing in the soul. He says, "We can 
not be satisfied that persons, with such eminent endow- 
ments, and who have once received the truth as it is in 
Jesus, should be deficient in any of the graces that con- 
stitute the mind of Christ; such as brotherly love, charity, 
harmony, unity, and order. I have given the above par- 
aphrase to this verse, because of the last term, xardprcfftv, 
hatartisin, which we render perfection. Karapriffiq, hatar- 
tisiSy from xard, (kata,) intensive, and dpzi^w, {artizo^ to 
fit or adapt, signifies the reducing of a dislocated limb to 
its proper place ; and hence, as Beza says on this pas- 
sage, 'The apostle's meaning is, that whereas the mem- 

44 



522 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



bers of the Church were all, as it were, dislocated, and out 
of joint, they should be joined together in love; and they 
should endeavor to make perfect what was amiss amoHg 
them, either in faith or morals." The general meaning 
of the word, with due respect to its etymology, as given 
by the four lexicographers quoted, shows that Dr. Clarke 
has given the true sense. The other noun derived from 
this verb is y.arapTiGiwq, (katartismos^ "A perfecting, that 
is, the act of making perfect. Eph. iv, 12." (Dr. Rob- 
inson.) He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and 
some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers;" "For 
the PERFECTING of the saints for the work of the minis- 
try," etc. It is seen that this ''perfecting of the saints" 
is the work of men, of teachers, pastors, and such like, 
and not the work of the Holy Spirit, in the sense as 
here used. For this purpose ''He [God] gave some" 
various orders of ministers and laborers in his Church. 
To say that the "perfecting" in this text means a sub- 
sequent work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, to that of 
the new birth, is, we presume, more than any one would 
say. It would be as incorrect as to say " the work of the 
ministry " is. Dr. Adam Clarke gives here the same inter- 
pretation as on the last passage as to sense. 

Here we close our investigation of the many passages 
to which we have called the reader's attention. We have 
not quoted and argued so very many for the purpose of 
proving our own views on this subject particularly, but 
to show, on a fair examination, that they will not sustain 
the doctrine of Christian perfection and entire sanctifica- 
tion as held by others. Our object has been to take each 
word in the original, whether Hebrew or Greek, and give 
it a full, fair, and impartial examination. In so doing 
we have tried to pass by no passage containing a word, 
which, in our humble judgment, we supposed the advocates 
of Christian perfection and entire sanctification, as writers 
have used these terms, could possibly claim as a proof of 



Aeq. XXIII.] PERFECTION AND SANCTIFICATION. 523 



their theory. We have tried to be honest iii the interpret- 
ation of the Word of God, by which we shall be judged. 
The sacred Word, notwithstanding the opinions of those 
whom we very highly esteem, has not been "handled de- 
ceitfully." 

Whether, by means of accredited comments, the most 
learned of scientific and exegetical authority, and the ac- 
knowledged rules of full and fair exegesis, we have suc- 
ceeded in explaining away the views of those with whom 
we differ, as to their proof-passages, is a question which 
the unprejudiced reader must decide. 



OOH-CLTJSIOl^. 



ARGUMENT XXIV. 

Since the subject-matter of the foregoing arguments 
is presented under two general heads, we will give our 
conclusion upon the whole accordingly, namely : 

I. As to regeneration. 

1. From the foregoing arguments it may be concluded 
that the Bible is a Divinely -inspired hook. The Holy 
Scriptures are themselves, considered as to their internal 
evidence, sufficient to prove this without calling to our aid, 
as absolutely necessary, the irresistible evidences of mir- 
acles and prophecy. Had the Bible been written by men 
uninspired of God, it is presumable that they would have 
written, especially on some important doctrine, in such a 
manner as to clash, and so make irreconcilable contradic- 
tions. Such a conclusion as this seems reasonable in the 
highest degree. For, on the hypothesis that they who 
wrote the Bible were not inspired, we may fairly suppose 
that they knew less, as to general information, and that 
they understood fewer languages, and upon the whole, 
taking them all together as a body of writers, that they 
were inferior to men of our day. And it is quite pre- 
sumable that they, as such, had not as good facilities for 
writing a consistent and harmonious volume, assumed to 
be the production of the human mind merely, as those 
have had who have received all the light possible of the 
most learned and improved age of the world, and as such, 

from the colleges and universities of both Europe and 
524 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



525 



Araericaj have written comments on the Bible. Yet these 
commentators in many of the less important and inci- 
dental points are constantly clashing, no odds whether 
they are of the same religious denomination or not, nor 
does it make any difference of what single given denom- 
ination. And not only is this the case in the abstract, as 
to topics in general, but it is even the case on some of the 
vital points of what men call Christian theology. One 
believes in a Trinity in Unity; another does not. One 
believes in a full and free atonement through Jesus 
Christ, for all the human family ; another believes in a 
limited atonement. Such is the way with human opinions. 
But does this make the Word of God, as we hold the Bi- 
ble to be, of none effect? God forbid; we thereby estab- 
lish it. For Ave perceive that learned, most devout, and 
God-fearing men thus disagree, both in general and as 
to particular points of the greatest moment. And that 
they are honest and sincere in their opinions, as opposed 
to any enmity at Divine revelation, no one doubts. This 
but teaches us that learned men, uninspired of God, ab- 
solutely can noty upon the fairest consideration of their 
candid intentions, agree as to the most vital points and 
parts of Christianity. In this manner the Christian 
Church, in her different branches, has been disputing on 
the doctrine of Christian perfection and entire sanctifica- 
tion for some ages. And to-day, take these doctrines or 
terms, and, considered both as to theory and practice, 
they seem to be very much misunderstood. The disparity 
of opinion is really wonderful. Some deny the possibility 
of attaining such in this life, and others the contrary 
hold. Some profess it; while others, professing to love 
God, sneer at such for their professedly-high attainments 
in grace. This they do even after the theme of their 
contention has been given, as they all hold, by Divine 
inspiration. 

Therefore, since learned, good, and well-meaning men 



526 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



fail to agree as to what Christian perfection is, and as to 
its attainment in this life, an acknowledged revelation of 
the doctrine having been given, is it not exceedingly pre- 
sumable that no men could have invented such a doctrine, 
independent of Divine aid, without clashing, especially 
when they wrote in different languages, thousands of 
years apart as to time, in different places, and under 
different circumstances? When they fail to agree under 
the most propitious circumstances, how could they have 
agreed under the unpropitious ? Is difficulty necessarily 
productive of light and consistency? But we have found 
the doctrine of Christian perfection and sanctification, as 
taught throughout the entire Bible, to be a consistent 
doctrine in the smallest particulars, and, to human appear- 
ances, apparently so in mere incidental instances. We 
have examined it in the Pentateuch, Job, Proverbs, the 
Psalms, the Prophets, and in the New Testament; and, 
in each, the designed and professedly taught discourse, 
and the apparently incidental remark, as to the impending 
question, are alike harmonious. 

It seems almost incidental that Abraham is regenerated 
about fourteen years before God commands him to be 
perfect. It seems rather incidental that that perfection 
is set forth in the rest of the chapter as consisting in 
Abraham's observing the command of circumcision as the 
fruit of his regeneration. It seems almost miraculous 
that, on our hypothesis, one UN-inspired Paul should men- 
tion this fact apparently so trivial, yet so important, 
nearly two thousand years afterward, and ask the Jew 
with striking emphasis as to the regeneration of Abra- 
ham, How was it then reckoned ? When he was in 
circumcision, or in un circumcision ? Not in circumcision, 
but [about fourteen years before whiW] in uncircumcision." 
It appears remarkable that Moses — Deut. xviii, 13 — should 
by chance, so to speak, in giving professedly a command 
from God concerning certain external duties of the Jewish 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



527 



religion, say and sura up those duties in one expression, 
"Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God." It 
seems strange that the bard of Israel, beginning Psa. cxix, 
should say, 0! the blessedness of the perfect as to the 
way, the walkers in the law of Jehovah; that Isaiah, 
concerning this perfection, as to the kind of heart from 
which it should proceed, should speak of the Lord's right- 
eous servant justifying many ; that the reputed Savior 
of the world, in his discourse with Nicodemus, should, as 
if by chance, preach the Abrahamic covenant, setting 
forth both God's part and man's therein without so much 
as once making mention of it; that he should preach 
his Sermon on the Mount and make use of the word 
perfect/' about which men seem to have contended so 
much, that in the order of events, I do not say a marked 
providence, it should so happen, that St. Luke should 
write the word merciful,''' instead of '^perfect,'' and thus 
fix beyond dispute the true meaning ; that the one ap- 
parently small matter of the word " wholly," in our trans- 
lation, on which, perhaps, the phrase " entire sanctifica- 
tion'' has been founded, should be found in the original 
to be an adjective having syntax to agree with its pro- 
noun, instead of being an adverb qualifying the verb; 
that these unobserved dislocations of the small joints of 
language should cripple our theology, and mystify the 
entire subject for so long a time. 

Do not these things show that the erring hand of man 
can very easily, yet unintentionally, throw out of harmony 
that law which is said to be "perfect?" Can not the 
most skeptical turn his attention to these small things, 
amounting to so great evidence, and see that the great 
Author of Divine revelation, like the accomplished musi- 
cian at his instrument, touched with a live coal from off 
his altar the pen of Moses, of David, of Isaiah, and of 
Paul, producing one symphonious sound of comprehensive 
truth, profitable to all, except where deep-seated prejudice 



528 REYIETV OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



may close the ear, or the malicious finger of infidelity 
create some discord? How very strange it is, that skep- 
ticism sneers at the faith of the Christian when its own 
votaries have more faith than he, though peculiar to them- 
selves ! For the amount of faith must be measured by 
the aggregate of evidence on which it rests — the Chris- 
tian believers in salvation through the merits of the cru- 
cified Redeemer, and through belief in the revealed Word, 
which actually comes to him with more evidence in its 
favor than was ever had on any one point among the 
afiairs of men — evidence, too, which has never been 
shaken, except in the estimation of those whose moral 
conduct may prove them to be incompetent judges as to 
the nature and amount of testimony suflBcient to establish 
a Divine revelation ; nor need this evidence fear investi- 
gation. On the other hand, infidelity, skulking from all 
commerce with truth, and without testimony commensurate 
with every-day afi'airs, believes the false, however much 
threatened with the consequences and rejects one hund- 
red well-established and unanswerable truths because it 
finds one apparent discrepancy. In this it may be ques- 
tioned whether the alleged defect is in the impending 
subject of investigation or in the mind of the investigator, 
so that, considered as to the facts in the case, the latter 
deserves, over the former, more credit for the quantity 
than for the quality of his faith. These considerations, 
if properly weighed, may be of some advantage to those 
who read the Scriptures but little, and that little more 
for the purpose of finding fault than for the design of 
their own instruction and edification. 

2. It seems reasonable, then, that we should adopt the 
revelation which has been given us, and that willingly, 
till we are able, at least, to produce a better one. The 
teaching of the Bible has always seemed to be consistent 
and salutary. Its influence on the human soul, like that 
of salt on flesh, keeps it from moral putrefaction, turns 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



529 



away the perpetual pestilence of false doctrines, and 
qualifies the man for every relation of life, and for a 
home in heaven. One infidel in society is like a dead 
body infected with the small-pox, especially if he has 
some little unenviable reputation for learning; he mostly 
gathers a few around himself of equally-corrupt tenden- 
cies, and then makes them twofold more the children of 
hell than before. And as the radical skeptic flies off* to 
his absolute destruction, on some erroneous tangent, mak- 
ing a total wreck of immortality, so do those of most 
sincere regard for the Bible, yet carelessly neglecting to 
found every word of their doctrine upon it, irrespective 
of what great and good men may have written, with due 
respect to them nevertheless, err in a proportional degree. 
We are indebted to the Bible for all the religious doc- 
trines we have ; and if a man, however good, and of how- 
ever good intentions, should write as to any doctrine of 
revelation, if he is not clear^ and easily to be compre- 
hended, making the whole theory presented harmonize 
with every other doctrine of the sacred Word, there may 
be at least some suspicion as to the soundness of his 
work. And men should be careful, if he has not proved 
his points from Scripture in every instance, by a proper 
observance of the scope and context belonging to each 
passage, how they adopt his views, lest they find out 
afterward that they have received " for doctrines the com- 
mandments of men." Who, of strictly Biblical views, inde- 
pendence of character, and proper discernment of mind, 
does not know that the chief schisms that have destroyed 
the unity of the Christian world, have had their very life 
and growth in an undue adherence of men to the mere 
ipse dixit of their ecclesiastical demagogues ? 

3. We conclude that regeneration is a clearly-taught 
doctrine of the Bible. 

(a) Orthodox men, who believe that an impure soul can 

not enter into the final kingdom of God, should naturally 

45 



530 



EEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



expect the doctrine pertaining to its cleansing, being, we 
may say, the most essential doctrine of all, to be revealed 
in the Holy Scriptures, if possible to conceive, more 
clearly than perhaps any other. 

{b) The Scriptural proof regeneration is both abun- 
dant and clear. (1.) This is the chief thing in what is 
known as the Gospel message:" "Go ye into all the 
world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned." (2.) Our Lord's discourse 
with Nicodemus — John, chap, iii — is a strong and clear 
setting forth of this doctrine. This discourse embraces 
the whole chapter. All St. John's writings are full of 
it. (3.) Its true character is mentioned in Col. iii, 10, 
and in Eph. iv, 24, and consists in the image of God 
created in the soul. (4.) It is taught in Scripture by dif- 
ferent names and expressions, such as born of God," 
born of the Spirit," regeneration," " quickened," 
" risen wdth Christ," etc. (5.) It is constantly included 
in the words justify and justification throughout the Epis- 
tles of St. Paul, as well as the rest of the New Testament. 
(6.) If the reader wants to find other proofs of this doc- 
trine, let him read and carefully study the twelfth and 
seventeenth chapters of Genesis inclusive, concerning the 
call and conversion of Abraham ; let him then in like 
manner examine the Epistle to the Romans and that to 
the Galatians, and he will find, if he read correctly, that 
on every page of those Epistles it is taught professedly, 
and, either directly or indirectly, with great strength of 
argument in power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost. 
(7.) In a word, regeneration, through faith in Christ, is 
the end of the atonement, at least in one sense, and it is 
the eno^rossino; theme of the Bible from Genesis to Rev- 
elation, more or less. When this doctrine is so clearly 
and fully taught, and so powerfully enforced as being ab- 
solutely necessary to an admission into eternal life, those 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



531 



who scorn both the doctrine itself and its necessity, and 
expect the eternal approbation of God notwithstanding, 
had better pause sufficiently long to give a reason why 
the Author of the Bible was so particular in revealing the 
doctrine of the birth of the Spirit, and its necessity, that 
he should suffer them to be willfully rejected, or else ex- 
pect the "vengeance of eternal fire" as the just demerit 
of their hell-born and heaven-daring pertinacity. 

(c) When men attempt to teach entire sanctification, as 
an internal and greater blessing than regeneration, for 
want of light they stumble, fall, and unconsciously slide 
into the doctrine of the new birth. As a proof of this 
position we Avill mention a few facts. (1.) They hold 
that entire sanctification or Christian perfection is obtain- 
able hi/ faith. Now, the moment they assume this ground, 
they take the term or condition of the Abrahamic cove- 
nant, and thereby show that a person whom they would 
regard as " wholly sanctified," is no more than one stand- 
ing in the some covenant relation, as Paul says, " with 
faithful Abraham." And since it can not be shown from 
Scripture that Abraham was ever " wholly sanctified," in 
their use of the phrase, it becomes evident that attempt- 
ing to teach their doctrine — emphatically theirs — they 
have mistaken the key of faith, and are compelled to fall 
back on the condition of another covenant, from the want 
of a covenant of their own, and to claim unjustly, as if 
by plagiarism, the condition of that one in which God 
promises, as a blessing to the soul, regeneration only. 
Now, if, from necessity, they must take man's part in that 
covenant — that is, faith — and use it as the sole means or 
condition, consistency asks, why not take God's part also 
in the same covenant, that is, regeneration, as the sole 
blessing ? This is Avhat we call unconsciously sliding into 
regeneration when they come to treat of entire sanctifica- 
tion. If faith, the term in the Abrahamic covenant, be 
the condition of salvation, the blessing in that covenant 



532 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



miist be the salvation itself; but St. Paul clearly treats 
that blessing as no other than justification and the bless- 
edness connected therewith, which we all hold to be re- 
generation. (2.) In the same manner this singular glid- 
ing into the doctrine of regeneration, and this intruding 
on its rights and its identity as a doctrine, are manifest 
from the want that entire sanctification shows of distinct 
evidences from those of the new birth. This want is so 
apparent, that Dr. Peck, as we have shown, in Argument 
X, objection 7, has, in all his evidences of Christian per- 
fection or sanctification, absolutely taken the plain, posi- 
tive, and Scriptural evidences of regeneration, and has 
applied them as proofs of his doctrine! Is not this an 
imperceptible transition into our view of the question? 
Would not the phrase sliding hack be rather expressive 
of this mode of treating the subject, all things consid- 
ered? Many other features of a similar kind might be 
mentioned; the reader can expand the idea. (3.) Our 
conclusion, therefore, is that regeneration is a plainly- 
taught doctrine of the Bible, having a covenant in which 
it is to be obtained on a clear and perpetually-taught 
condition of faith, and having evidences in vast number, 
whereas entire sanctification, as such, is not a clearly- 
revealed doctrine, having neither a distinct covenant, dis- 
tinct and reliable proof-passages of Scripture, nor distinct 
Scriptural evidences. Logically, therefore, we think that 
men should adopt, experience, and give demonstrations, 
in their outward deportment, of the former, and wholly 
reject the latter as untenable. 

4. We further conclude that regeneration is a necessary 
blessing to the human soul. 

(a) This has already been assumed in this conclusion, 
but very many reasons mJght be adduced in proof. Since 
many arguments, however, are not as necessary as sound 
ones, we will give a few of this class. 

(6) Regeneration is necessary to final and eternal sal- 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



533 



vation because the "Judge of all the earth," who will 
"do right," will judge men as covenant-breakers or as eove- 
nant-Jceepers. As to the former he has said, that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned.''^ Reader, I put these words 
in italics that jou may carefully observe them. This is 
the " eternal decree " of God — I mean the eternal decree 
of "reprobation." As to the latter he has said, '''He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'' These words in 
like manner are worthy of notice. This is the "eternal 
decree ;" this is " election." Nor is it particular whether 
it be said, in substance, that God from all eternity fore- 
ordained that a certain number of the human family 
should be eventually saved, and that there can never be 
increase or diminution thereto, and that a fixed number 
are not so ordained but passed by^ and so virtually fore- 
ordained to eternal fire. We say it makes no difference 
whether we take this ground or not. It is nothing to us. 
We can not tell whether it is so or not, as an opinion 
isolated from all other views such as we can find in the 
Scriptures. If it was revealed in the Bible we would give 
our opinion on it, but as it is, and as these arguments are 
rather inclined to treat of what is revealed, we will leave 
that between the reader and his Judge to decide. As to the 
decree, however, in question, there are some points which 
ought not to be neglected, granting that God has eter- 
nal decrees as to election and reprobation : First. That he 
never decreed that any man should be an unbeliever and 
so damned^ nor that any should absolutely be a believer 
and so saved. Secondly. We would have it observed 
that the eternal decrees of God are two. They are abso- 
lute and irrevocable. The first is, " HE THAT BELIEV- 
ETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED." The 
second is, " HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE 
DAMNED." Let no man deceive himself; the decree 
which will fix his eternal destiny is in his own will. All 
this is implied in, and according to, the Abrahamic cove- 



534 



EETIEW OF TTESLEYAX PERFECTION. [Part II. 



nant of free grace. It is. indeed, the very corenant itself 
simply expressed in other words ; which covenant never 
could have been introduced and established, having terms 
and conditions, on the part of man, subsequently to the 
supposed eternal decree of election and reprobation taught 
by some. TTe might as well talk of the same country 
having a despotic form of government and coexistent Avith 
this a republican form, since the ideas connected with 
each, respectively, are wholly incompatible. Either the 
Calvinistic decrees as to election and reprobation must be 
disproved and rejected, or else the covenant of free grace 
with the condition of faith on man's part and the gift of 
the only-begotten Son, and Savior of the world, on God's 
part must be. But if we reject the latter, behold the 
consequences ! Be perfectly calm, therefore, about the 
*' decrees of God.'' In the day of judgment the Judge 
will not say to you, " Come ye decreed or elected, as 
such, inherit the kingdom," etc. : nor will he say, " De- 
part from me ye reprobated, as such, into everlasting 
fire," etc. But he will judge man by his good works, 
considered not in the abstract, for this would be saving 
men by works antecedent to justification by faith; but he 
will take cognizance of the works of love and mercy as 
the test and sign of faith; and to those thus justified he 
will say, " I was a stranger and ye took me in," etc. ; 
"enter into the joy of thy Lord." On the other hand, 
he will condemn the wicked on the same ground of works 
as the index to a bad faith, and as opposed to that which 
is set forth as the condition in the covenant of mercy. 

He shall reward every man according to his works." 
Matt, xvi, 27. Hence regeneration, being the blessing 
that God gives to every soul that believes in him, is ab- 
solutely necessary in keeping with the covenant of grace 
between God and man. 

(c) The necessity of regeneration is also seen in the 
fact that man hy nature is morally dead. We say " by 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



535 



nature " he is so. There is quite an effort made in the 
infidel world, at present, to prove that man is naturally 
a good being. It is granted that all men have some 
apparent good, which seems so to mortals, and which 
we must attribute to the influence of the Holy Spirit 
on their hearts, since " the manifestation of the Spirit 
is given to every man to profit withal." 1 Cor. xii, 
7. But the all-seeing eye of the Lord can not so dis- 
cern. For, "The Lord looked down from heaven 
upon the children of men, to see if there were any that 
did understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, 
they are altogether become filthy ; there is none that 
doeth good, no, not one." So it seems that original 
purity is contrary to the Bible. When St. Paul argued 
the necessity of justification by faith, and so of regenera- 
tion, as always connected with it, he referred to this lan- 
guage of the Psalmist, just quoted, showing the Jew that 
he was naturally no better than the Gentile, that his 
only chance for s-alvation was through justification by 
faith, that there was no Jewish morality or preferences 
which could recommend him to God. Therefore he said, 
"We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that 
they are all under sin." When Avriting to the Ephe- 
sians, he tells them that they were "by nature the chil- 
dren of wrath;" (pbaei^ physei\ may be rendered as to birth, 
or descent; it well compares with the author's use of the 
same word in Gal. ii, 15, " We are Jews by nature, and 
not sinners of the Gentiles;" that is, (poaei, physei, as to 
birth we are Jews. This is the Greek dative of respect 
wherein any thing is applied, and is used to tell in what 
respect one is a child of wrath, and plainly says by or as 
to nature, that is, etymologically considered, the same as 
by or as to birth. It accords with the prophet, that man is 
" a transgressor from the womb." Isa. xlviii, 8. 

It being true that " that which is born of the flesh is 
flesh," fallen and sinful by birth, like as the parent 



536 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



according to all the analogies of nature in the reproduction 
of the animal world; "Marvel not, ... ye must 
be born again." On account of an original, total deprav- 
ity in man there must be a new birth. This was our 
Lord's argument against Nicodemus. How false, we 
again remark, is the unconditional salvation of all men ! 
It was the "father of lies" that first preached this doc- 
trine, " Ye shall not surely die." This was the first false- 
hood that ever he told. For when God cursed him it was 
"because thou hast done this." His cheek at this time 
not seeming to be very hard, he rather blushes at the 
promulgation of the doctrine the first time, and so qual- 
ifies it with a " surely !" This sermon was preached to 
a congregation of but two, nearly six thousand years 
ago. They believed it; they practiced it, and it damned 
them both unto the absolute loss of the Divine image, the 
expulsion from the garden, and from the Divine presence, 
while its pernicious and damnable influence has been en- 
tailed upon their posterity unto this day. How strange it 
is, that when this doctrine once had a fair trial, having 
been preached to the whole world of mankind, already in 
a state of grace, when it proved then to be a signal failure, 
that this will not satisfy some, who in their moral infatua- 
tion and blindness, continue to stand side by side with 
their ancient father, whom they shamefully deny, and 
preach this doctrine still ! Behold the contrast ! This 
doctrine damns, Christ's saves; therefore, it is not of God. 
There are none so blind as those who will not see ! 
None so deaf as those who will not hear ! It was not 
without some show of reason that the Savior of man said 
to a class of men of not less morality, " Ye will not come 
to me that ye might have life." We have no apology to 
offer for these remarks. We are speaking of the neces- 
sity of the new birth. We are teaching a very false 
doctrine if this that we oppose is true; hence it justly 
demands what we have said for standing in the way of 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



537 



our argument, and of what we understand to be Divine 
truth. 

{d) The necessity of the new birth will appear also in 
the truth, that it is God's own plan ivhereby we are restored 
to the Divine image and favor ivhich we lost in the Fall. 
It is his only plan, which was given through Christ, our 
Redeemer. But he, so far as personal salvation is con- 
cerned, is to be our Savior only on the conditions of the 
Gospel. Now, for the love of the Divine image, for the 
sake of assimilating his pure likeness, we ought to '^ac- 
quaint now ourselves with him, and be at peace," through 
the blessing of regeneration. 

{e) A very rational argument for the necessity of the 
spiritual birth is, that Christ died for us. Since he loved 
us, we ought to love him in return. "Ye are bought 
with a PRICE ; therefore glorify God in your body, and in 
your spirit, which are God's." Reader, please reflect on 
the love of thy Lord to a lost world, to thyself, and never 
cease to think upon it. Space will not allow a proper 
expansion of this great inspired truth ''^in this place. 
Angels might covet our privilege. "Behold what man- 
ner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we 
should be called the sons of God." But let it be the 
theme of our earliest and latest meditations to draw the 
soul away from that which is earthly and fix it on the 
heavenly — on him "who was delivered for our offenses, 
and was raised again for our justification." These are 
Scriptural reasons, given by the revelation of the Holy 
Spirit himself for the necessity of being born of God 
when he would woo man to the bosom of the Father. 
And what objection any one can have to this doctrine 
we can not see, unless that his heart is defiled with 
that natural disease above alluded to, on which the in- 
spired writers establish the necessity of a spiritual change, 
and unless his faith and morals are thereby rendered 
impure. 



538 



KEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



(/) There is, on the other hand, no necessity for entire 
sanctification, as such, for, first, its own friends say that 
regeneration is sufficient to procure the ultimate salvation 
of man. Dr. Peck, speaking of those who are justified, 
but not wholly sanctified, as such, says, ''Though their 
sanctification may not be complete, they have the promise 
of eternal life, and, of course, have the pledge of com- 
plete sanctification, if they should be cut ofi" by death in 
that state. It is most absurd to suppose that a justified 
soul can be lost, without having forfeited his justification 
by backsliding."* Here is proof from the pen of a strong 
advocate of entire sanctification, as a second work of 
grace, that the new birth alone will suffice to secure ever- 
lasting life. Therefore, there can be NO necessity for all 
that is additionally claimed. Second. We have argued 
the sufficiency of regeneration in Argument VIII, which 
is not to be overlooked here as rendering what is called 
" complete sanctification " entirely useless. Third. It may 
be fairly proved from the writings of Rev. Richard Wat- 
son, the best theologian, perhaps, as a writer, in any 
branch of the Church as yet, first, that there is no such 
thing as sanctification, as a subsequent work in the heart 
to the new birth ; secondly, that it has no fruits. He 
says, " The change in regeneration consists in the re- 
covery of the MORAL IMAGE of God upon the heart ; that 
is to say, so as to love him supremely and serve him 
ultimately as our highest end, and to delight in him 
superlatively as our chief good. The sum of the moral 
law is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and 
soul, and strength, and mind. This is the duty of every 
rational creature ; and in order to obey it perfectly, no 
part of our inward affection or actual service ought to be 
at any time, or in the least degree, misapplied. Regen- 
eration consists in the principle being implanted, obtain- 
ing the ascendency, and habitually prevailing over its 

^ * Christian Perfection, Abridged Edition, p. 31. 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



539 



opposite."* Now, I think that there is no uninspired 
man who can better define regeneration and its fruit than 
our author has here done it. For a man to do any more 
than is declared in this definition, is, in our opinion, as 
impossible, and as unreasonable, as it would be for hira 
to think of making a world; yet, in the very nature of 
the case, more is required of a man to be " wholly sanc- 
tified" than to be merely regenerated, according to the 
distinction in the theory. Two things are to be noticed 
in this definition of regeneration. First. He speaks of 
it as an inward Avork, and says it is the recovery of the 
MORAL IMAGE OF GoD upon tlie heart. Second. He says, 
in substance, that the fruit of such a state of grace is the 
complete observance of the Divine law, and that "in order 
to obey it (the moral law) perfectly, no part of our out- 
ward affection or^ actual service ought to be, at any time, 
or IN THE LEAST DEGREE, misapphed." Now, let us ex- 
amine him in the same work where he defines sanctifica- 
tion. He says it is " that work of God's grace by which 
we are renewed after the image of God, set apart for his 
service, and enabled to die unto sin and live unto right- 
eousness. Sanctification is either of nature, whereby we 
are renewed after the image of God, in knowledge, right- 
eousness, and true holiness, Eph. iv, 24, Col. iii, 19, or 
of practice, whereby we die unto sin, have its power de- 
stroyed in us, cease from the love and practice of it, hate 
it as abominable, and live unto righteousness, loving and 
studying good works. Tit. ii, 11, 12. Sanctification 
comprehends all the graces of knowledge, faith, repent- 
ance, love, humility, zeal, patience, etc., and the exercise 
of them in our conduct toward God and man. Gal. v, 
22-24; 1 Pet. i, 15, 16; Matt, v, vi, vii. Sanctification 
in this world must be complete ; the w^hole nature must 
be sanctified, all sin must be utterly abolished, or the soul 
can never be admitted into the glorious presence of God." 

Theological Dictionary, Article Regeneration. 



540 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 

Two things will here be observed as in his definition of 
regeneration. (1.) He says that sanctification is that 
luork of God^s grace hy which we are renewed after the 
IMAGE OF God. But the first point in his definition of 
regeneration is the recovery of the moral image of God 
upon the heart! Reader, do not these two statements 
perfectly coincide ? Are not the two declarations iden- 
tical in sense? Is the "image" of God superior, in what 
is called entire sanctification, to what it is in regenera- 
tion? Do we mean that our God, like Proteus, assumes 
a difierent image, at difi'erent times, suited to the theo- 
logical notions of men? (2.) We will now notice the 
fruits of sanctification, which Mr. Watson gives as the 
second point in his definition of it. Part of this, he says, 
is " loving and studying good works and his reference 
to Gal. V, 22-24, is where St. Paul gives the fruits of the 
Spirit, all in one catalogue, among which he mentions 
"love," and in verse 14 of the same chapter he says, 
" All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this. Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This St. Paul gives 
as the fruit of the Spirit which every soul justified and 
regenerated has ; for in Galatians the apostle is speaking 
of regeneration, and not of what is termed sanctification. 
The adjective ayioq^ (hagios,) holy, the verb dyidO^w, (hagi- 
azo,) to make holy, ayiaaixo^^ {hagiasmos^ holiness, dytwffuvrj, 
(Jiagiosune,) holiness, and dycoTTjq, (hagiotes,) holiness, are 
all w^anting in the Epistle to the Galatians. But since 
the apostle taught the substance of their meaning in 
verses 22-24, as the " fruit of the Spirit," to which Mr. 
Watson refers in his definition of sanctification, it is plain 
that our whole view of the question does not consist in 
sound, but in the exact se7ise of the Scriptures, otherwise 
the apostle did not preach entire sanctification to the Ga- 
latians, at all, not having used any word of that class. 
Therefore, since Mr. Watson has given us the fulfilhng 
of the moral law, as the fruit of sanctification, the fruit 



Aug. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



541 



here, as the second point deducible from his definition, 
perfectly coincides with the fruit of regeneration as he 
has stated it in the second point of that definition.. 
Therefore the two doctrines, as held by Mr. Watson, ex- 
actly coincide throughout each to each. Hence they are 
one and the same, considering sanctification as an inward 
work. If what is here said is incorrect, theologically, 
then the same principle is incorrect mathematically ; for 
there is a proposition in geometry, capable of demon- 
stration, which says, "Tf two triangles have two sides and 
the included angle of the one, equal to two sides and the 
included angle of the othej^, each to each, the two triangles 
will he equal." 

If we may be permitted to carry out this analogical 
demonstration a little further, in making the " image of 
God" and the observance of the moral law represent the 
two sides of the triangle respectively, there is a third 
particular that will well represent the "included angle" 
also ; for in Mr. Watson's definition of sanctification, above 
given, he says, "All sin must be utterly abolished." 
Very good. In another place he defines regeneration in 
these words : "It is that mighty change in man, wrought 
by the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion which sin has 
over him in his natural state, and which he deplores and 
struggles against in his penitent state, is broken and 
abolished, so that, with full choice of will and the energy 
of right afi"ections, he serves God freely, and ^runs the 
way of his commandments.' ' Whosoever is born of God 
DOTH not commit SIN, for his seed remaineth in him, and 
he CAN NOT sin, because he is born of God.' ^For sin 
SHALL NOT HAVE DOMINION over you ; for ye are not un- 
der the law, but under grace.' 'But now being made 
FREE from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your 
fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting hfe.' Deliv- 
erance from the bondage of sin, and the power and the 

WILL to do ALL THINGS WHICH ARE PLEASING TO GOD, 



542 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



both as to INWARD habits and outward acts, are, there- 
fore, the distinctive characters of this state.'"^ 

Now, gentle reader, please turn back and read this def- 
inition of regeneration over again. Notice, (1.) The words 
in capitals, duly weighing their meaning. (2.) The three 
Scripture proofs which he gives of regeneration. (3.) 
That both in this and his definition of sanctification, he 
positively teaches the abolition of sin from the heart. 
The one word "abolished" is actually common to both. 
Which of these definitions teaches the most thorough work 
in the soul ? Reader, you may profess entire sanctifica- 
tion. If so, when you passed from the regenerate state to 
that of the " wholly sanctified," how much better were 
you, our mutual friend, Mr. Watson, being judge ? Our 
" included angle," then, is represented by the abolition 
of sin in both his definitions ! Were it not out of place 
.here, we would be compelled to aver that this view of re- 
generation, compared with his "former corruptions" in 
a regenerated soul, before mentioned, presents a contradic- 
tion which no man can remove. We, therefore, conclude, 
what under this third subdivision we undertook to prove, 
namely, first, that there is no such thing as sanctification, 
as a work in the heart subsequent to and distinct from 
regeneration ; secondly, that such can have no fruit ; for 
Mr. Watson, like Dr. Peck, has given it the fruit of regen- 
eration. 

Two additional conclusions, of a general character, as 
corroborating points already discussed, and as of no infe- 
rior moment, may here be mentioned, {a) We have sufii- 
ciently proved, under letter (/), that there is no necessity 
for what is called entire sanctification, since our most emi- 
nent author and advocate of that belief has incidentally 
made out regeneration a complete work of grace in the 
soul, (h) His definition of regeneration, just now quoted 
from his Institutes, when observed particularly as to those 

* Theological Institutes, VoL ii, Part Second, chap, xxiv, p. 267. 



Abg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



543 



words in capitals, some of which are words of Scripture, 
incidentally and positively teach that a regenerated soul 
can not have sin attributed to it, as a superficial glance at 
St. Paul's Epistles might lead one to suppose ; for where 
sin is "abolished" in a man, he is not carnal; and the 
apostle had reference to "w^olves in sheep's clothing" on 
all such occasions. 

5. Regeneration may be obtained instantaneously. 

{a) There is abundance of Scripture in proof of this. 
We mention this point as one which has been denied, 
and that, too, from the pulpit of a Church professing to 
be of the real apostolic succession. The ground has 
been assumed that there is a gradual work, requiring a 
lifetime to obtain it. We do not say that this, itself, is a 
strong presumption against such ministers themselves 
ever having experienced the new birth. Our Lord hath 
said, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
life." (h) At what period of a man's life he shall obtain 
this " everlasting life " in his soul, or what length of time 
it will require him to obtain it, are questions to be de- 
termined by the nature of the human mind, it being 
granted that the blessing is obtained by faith. If ty^st, 
the true and essential element in justifying faith, to be 
exercised by the mind, is the work of a lifetime, then 
those gentlemen are perhaps correct ; but we are disposed 
to think, that the thief on the cross, Peter on the water, 
and the Syrophenician woman, had more active minds 
than some of those stalwart clergy of the gown and 
prayer-book, who would perhaps have a score of souls to 
perish eternally while they are adjusting their robes, or 
prove themselves the honored instruments in saving one. 
for a baptism of the Holy Ghost! "Help, Lord, for 
the godly man ceaseth ; for the faithful fail from among 
the children of men." (c) Our observation teaches us 
that men are instantaneously regenerated. (1.) As to the 
countenance of such, when the work is wrought in them 



544 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



by the Holy Spirit. The countenance of man is regarded 
as the index of his heart, in most instances, even by dis- 
cerning skeptics. The man of a free, open countenance, 
who is not afraid to look up, who is able, under any cir- 
cumstances, to act with perfect composure, and look his 
fellow- man in the face, is regarded as an honest man at 
heart — the exceptions are comparatively few — while the 
shy, skulking character, who, like the wolf, abhors the 
look of man, eye to eye, is supposed to be guilty. All 
this is acknowledged and observed by avowed infidels. 
We are acquainted with an individual who has now in his 
possession a chart of his own cranium, given by 0. S. 
Fowler, the well-known American phrenologist, who, as 
was supposed, on examination, gave a remarkably-accu- 
rate and frank account of his character. In this he sim- 
ply placed his hand on the head, making no pretensions to 
feeling a thousand bumps that never existed, as the sci- 
ence of phrenology sometimes simulates ; but standing 
before his subject, he looked him constantly in the coun- 
tenance, and thereby made his chart. 

Observe the difference between the man held in high 
esteem by his fellows, and that one on the gallows under 
sentence of death. The one smiles; the other is sad. 
These are things that all admit, and that none can deny. 
Now for an application of the fact in the case. Observe 
the wicked and most abandoned, and the strongest-nerved 
champion of the vilest classes of human society ; when the 
Divine Spirit reaches his heart, having heard the Word 
of life preached, or the feeblest instrumentality having 
been employed, his countenance puts away its vain aspect, 
and begins to assume the deepest solemnity ; tears flow pro- 
fusely ; the voice is broken ; the whole physical man trembles, 
like Felix. In the anguish of his spirit he falls at the altar 
of prayer, and cries, "God be merciful to me a sinner." 
All are conscious, through the testimony of their own eyes 
and ears, from his countenance bathed in tears, and the 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



545 



"wailings of his contrite heart, that the soul within is in deep 
and indescribable trouble. The external index of that soul 
shows it as plainly as the gloomy countenance of the crim- 
inal attests that he is the victim of a righteous judicial 
punishment. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, he 
leaps to his feet and shouts, "Glory to God!" "My sins 
are forgiven !" His countenance beams with a heavenly 
beauty. God has wiped the tears of penitence from his 
eyes. He has given unto him " beauty for ashes, the oil 
of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit 
of heaviness." His face is now the index of his heart, 
just as much as it was before. What is the cause of this 
external appearance, this real change on his features 
which our eyes behold? Why is his mourning turned 
into praise, according to the testimony of the ears? Is 
not the proof sufficient to indicate a real change within 
corresponding? Does not this agree with the language 
of the prophet, where he says, " A new heart also will I 
give you?" Will skepticism account for all this, or will 
it deny that the countenance is the index of the heart in 
this case, and maintain it in other circumstances ? We 
are told, " The man is deceived ;" " he is in a spasm of 
excitement ;" " there is no reality in his conversion as a 
work of the Holy Spirit in his heart;" "it is mere fanat- 
icism." Perhaps there was no reality in your mourning 
when the word came from the battle-field that your 
friend was dead, when you mourned in deepest sorrow 
over the sad news. Perhaps all was feigned as to the fact, 
that he afterward, the news having been false, came home 
and took you on such a welcome surprise, that you fainted 
in an ecstasy of joy. Forsooth your mourning had been 
all feigned! Your joy mere fanaticism! When these 
ackno^rl edged instances of instantaneous joy, in common 
affairs are accounted for, it will be time for us to doubt 
instantaneous regeneration, having similar evidence in 
the aspect of the countenance. Now, that entire sanctifi- 

46 



546 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



cation, as an inward Tvork of the Holy Spirit, is moment- 
ary, is a proposition in the debate that the writer is not 
anxious to affirm, however gradually such a point may be 
approached; and consequently he will leave it for more 
learned and able men. 

(2.) The conduct of persons regenerated teaches us that 
the blessing is instantaneous. It often happens that men 
converted in a moment's time begin immediately to exhort 
others to seek that salvation which they themselves denied 
perhaps not twenty-four hours before their convictions. 
And instead of hatino^ their enemies, the first thino; after 
their regeneration, they often go to them asking forgive- 
ness, confessing past faults, old grudges, personal wrongs, 
and retaliations. Is this human ? In addition to this^ 
their lives, in many instances, are changed, as to the 
ways in which they walk, all the rest of their days. In- 
stead of blasphemy, they are devoted to God; instead of 
hating, they love ; transgression gives place to prayer ; 
retaliation to blessings ; pride to humility. All these are 
manifested in such a degree, that no mere nominal re- 
pentance or change of habit, as is often the case in mere 
morals, can imitate them. This change of life is rather 
too great to be called a mere sham. The battle waxes 
too warm in Christian warfare for mere hypocrisy. These 
characters pray; they take up every cross; they endure 
every reproach. In every good word and work they are 
instant in season and out of season. Such can not well 
be said of those who unite with the Church for popularity 
and mere social relations of the better classes. In the 
day of the Lord's battles they are out of rank, or for- 
sooth have deserted the field ; in the season of public 
prayer they are speechless ; as sentinels they are asleep 
at their post. If their wealth renders all obsequious to 
them, they are exceedingly pious; take away their money, 
and you completely annihilate them. Those who deny 
these facts are surely wanting in every-day observation. 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



547 



Nor can any objection, founded on mere nominal profes- 
sion, or on the bad deeds of such, invalidate the testimony 
of the faithful, since the Christian religion, practically and 
experimentally considered in the soul, has a sufficient 
number who are really holy, and demonstrate its reahty. 
This sudden and perpetual change in the life of the re- 
generated is worth something to our argument if fairly 
considered. 

6. Regeneration is represented as being a. perpetual 
blessing in the soul, never to be transcended by any other 
of a different name. ' 

{ci) As defined hy eminent authority in our Churchy it 
can never be surpassed, as to completeness in purity. 
(1.) We have before quoted Mr. Watson, wherein he de- 
fines it properly as the recovery of the moral image of 
God upon the heart." (2.) Our catechism, published by 
our Church, "unanimously adopted" at the "General 
Conference held in Boston, May, 1852," defines regener- 
ation, in answer to question 56, '^WJiat is regeneration f 
thus: "It is the new birth of the soul in the image of 
Christ, whereby we become the children of God." Both 
these definitions we regard as correct, but both make the 
soul born of the Spirit to be in the Divine image; there- 
fore, we hold that a more perfect work within than this 
can never take place. This can never be excelled; for, 
taking Mr. Watson's definition of sanctification, as before 
given, and granting that it is possessed in the soul, that 
soul would not be any better ^ would not be any more pure 
or perfect as to moral cleansing. It would only have just 
the same Divine image still. That our spirits wholly 
sanctified, according to given theory, are more pure than 
when regenerated is contradicted by the definitions of our 
received authors. And the doctrine of sin in a regener- 
ated soul, and hence the necessity of complete sanctity, 
makes the case more difficult still. To human reason it 
is absurd; for we have before found the doctrines to be 



548 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



identical, from that very source, too, that teaches sin to 
be in believers; so that if it is in the regenerated man, it 
is also in him who is "wholly sanctified," since they cor- 
respond precisely — ^both being in the image of God — sin 
in both being " abolished/"' Therefore, from the position 
of our Church on this question, entire sanctification is 
actually inconceivable ! positively impossible ! and regen- 
eration must be a perpetual blessing, as it respects its 
never being excelled by any. other because there is no 
greater. 

(b) The idea of the necessity of a greater work in the 
soul than regeneration rests on a sandy foundation, namely, 
" sin in believers." This doctrine may be questioned from 
several fair considerations. (1.) It supposes the heart to 
be 7102V what it 07ice was — to be to-day what it was yesterday 
when it behoved. (2.) Such a notion is at war with the re- 
ceived definitions of regeneration, before given, which say 
that the heart is then morally in the image of God. Is there 
sin in that image ? (3.) It seems to overlook the tend- 
ency of the heart to depart from God after it has been 
renewed, on which point the Scriptures give much warn- 
ing, such as, "Abide in me;" "Continue ye in my love;" 
" He that believeth hath eternal life." There can be no 
sin in eternal life; if so, can there not be sin in heaven? 
Again, the verb "believeth" is in the present tense, and 
may be regarded as implying a constant reliance in Christ 
and the all-sufficiency of his atonement ; at which time, 
if there is a Scriptural reliance, there can be no sin in 
the heart, for the covenant blood is thereby applied which 
" cleanseth us from all sin." Sin exists very often — 
alas, how common I — in him who was a believer, but never 
in the heart of him who is a believer. Such a view con- 
tradicts our Lord and his apostles in many places. Where 
there is sin there is condemnation, but says our Lord, 
" He that believeth [Greek, 6 -ktzsowv^ tlie one believing] is 
NOT condemned." John iii, 18. Paul says, " There is 



Akg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



549 



therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in 
Christ Jesus." Rom. viii, 1. From these statements we 
may fairly conclude that since condemnation, the effect of 
sin in the heart, is wholly removed, the cause which pro- 
duced it is also. The facts in the case are simply these: 
If the soul was regenerated in time past and now has sin, 
it was either not entirely cleansed therefrom in that event, 
or else it has backslidden; if the former, then regenera- 
tion is NOT the moral image of God in the soul, since 
there is no sin in that image, and the received definitions 
also, as given, are incorrect. If the latter, then he is not 
a believer, but he has become an unbeliever, and, conse- 
quently, sin exists in him as such, and not as a believer. 
This latter view will be strengthened by two considera- 
tions : First. The Scripture represents immediate separa- 
tion from Christ as the result of a relaxation of justifying 
faith. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a 
branch, and is withered." Here the aorist ijSXrjOr], is cast 
forth, is used to express the instant effect of unbelief. 
Professor Crosby says this tense is employed "with a 
certain expression of instantaneousnessJ'^^^ Dr. Winer, on 
this very passage — John xv, 6 — says, '^It is cast away; 
. . . the not abiding has this immediate consequence : 
whoever has separated himself from Christ, is like a 
branch cut off and cast away, which belongs no more 
FROM THAT MOMENT to the fruit-bearing vine."f Sec- 
ondly. We have every reason to believe that a most over- 
whelming majority of professing Christians, judging from 
the Scriptural standard of holiness, that is, the require- 
ments of the moral laAV, are in a backslidden state. The 
love of gain, called covetousness, idolatry, pride, and ex- 
tortion, are common in the very bosom of the Church. 
The rules of ecclesiastical government are scarcely ever 
enforced against the delinquent members. And where are 

* Greek Grammar, ^ 575. 

t Idioms of the Language of the New Testament, ^ 41, 5, b. 



550 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



their accusers? Alas! "His watchmen are blind; thej 
are all ignorant, thej are all dumb dogs, they can not 
bark.; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber." Isa. Ivi, 
10. Therefore, the doctrine of " sin in believers " is dis- 
proved whichsoever of the two alternatives we take. (4.) 
But the objector may say, " Does not every regenerated 
man feel sin still lurking within, and therefore must he 
not be wholly sanctified?" To this we reply, first, Mr. 
Watson has made it appear that he is as free from sin as 
those who claim to be wholly sanctified. Second. If feel- 
ing is to determine the question, then this sense is as 
good evidence on the other side ; for every one regener- 
ated knows that his soul has received the fullness of the 
Holy Spirit. This he knows because he feels it; and we 
would most urgently ask if he feels sin now ? since his 
justification does he not also feel that he has backslid- 
den? Thirdly. This position may prove too much; for 
if we are to regard the feelings as any evidence at all as 
to whether the soul is regenerated merely, or wholly sanc- 
tified, why not also regard the works of the latter as 
proof of their profession also, especially since works are 
characteristic of the feelings and condition of the soul ? 
But if this be done, the deeds of some who have pro- 
fessed a second work of grace may not very well evince 
the doctrine. The reader can supply here many such of 
their acts as w^e forbear to mention ; but we would inquire 
if they, in proportion to their number, have not given 
evidence of sin within equally with those who profess no 
more than regeneration? Fourthly. It is not proper to 
make feeling the test of theology. We must make the- 
ology the test of feeling. 

(c) The Scripture represents regeneration as a per- 
petual blessing. "The just shall live by faith." Rom. 
i, 17. The dixaioq, (dikaios,) just man, that is, the man 
who is justified, and so regenerated, lives by faith, 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



551 



the term or condition of his saved state before God, 
implying that he lives a spiritual life, by holding to the 
" blessing of Abraham," by means of the faith of Abra- 
ham," which blessing is the new birth only. ^' Abide in 
me." John xv, 4. To abide "in Christ" is to be a be- 
liever, and to be a believer is to be justified, and this is 
to be regenerated. Hence the expression is about the 
same as if he had said, " Abide in me as regenerated 
men;" that is, stay regenerated perpetually. "He that 
believeth on me hath everlasting life." John vi, 47. 
Now, from the very nature of " everlasting life," wliich 
depends on the perpetuity of the faith, it is impossible 
for a greater blessing to enter the soul. And hence, so 
far as it relates to sanctification, as an inward work, hav- 
ing any chance to occupy, regeneration must be perpet- 
ual. It is a clearly-revealed truth, that where a soul is 
born of God, it has the Holy Spirit dwelling in it. In 
fact, that change is wrought by the Spirit, a thing which 
all orthodox divines admit and teach. Yet the Spirit is 
the Christian's evidence of the Divine favor, as long as 
he lives on the earth after he has experienced justifica- 
tion. He never gets, Scripturally speaking, a brighter 
evidence of God's favor, because no more is needed. 
"Hereby know we that he abideth in us, by the Spirit 
which he hath given us." 1 John iii, 24. Does not 
this teach us that regeneration is our perpetual state of 
favor with God as long as we live in the body ? St. Paul 
fully proves this when he says, "We stand" in grace 
" and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." 

{d) This perpetual feature of this heavenly state, never 
surpassed by any other, is in perfect accordance with the 
best approved Christian experience. Carvosso, that man 
of God, though a believer in what is called entire sancti- 
fication, nevertheless, in an incidental way, declares the 
truth Avhich we affirm. He says, " I often compare my 



552 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



heart to a watch or clock, which must be regularly wound 
up, or it will be found quite useless. 

* Still stir me up to strive 

With thee in strength Divine ; 
And EVERY MOMENT, Lord, revive 
This fainting heart of mine.' 

In all mj life I never felt a greater need of praying to 
my Heavenly Father, that he would continually cleanse 
the thoughts of my heart. I see I must take great care, 
or vain thoughts will lodge within me.* I must confess 
that I have sustained a loss from this quarter. If not 
repelled in a moment, they are of such a pernicious na- 
ture that a sting will be left behind ; and were it not for 
a fresh application of the 'blood that speaketh better 
things than the blood of Abel,' it would prove fatal. But, 
0, what a mercy it is, the Christian has a shield which, when 
well exercised, repels every fiery dart of the adversary ; 
but if for a moment the shield should slip, and a wound 
be received, there is no room for a moment's despair, for 

* He has an Advocate ahove, 
A Friend before the throne of love.' 

how great my privilege I even above that of Adam ; 
for now it is written, ' If any man sin, we have an Advo- 
cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.' And 
of his advocacy I never saw so much need as I do at 
present ; not that I am now more unfaithful than for- 
merly, but I now more clearly see that I depend on the 
intercession of Christ for every thing." (Memoir, pp. 
202-3.) Our hymn, by Charles Wesley, beginning, 

" for a heart to praise my God, 
A heart from sin set free, 
A heart that always feels thy blood, 
So freely spilt for me," 

has the same sentiment, namely, a continual regeneraiion 

*By " great care" he kept vain thoughts" away, and thus maintained 
perpetual regeneration ; but had they " lodged within," I suppose we would 
then have had a practical example of " sin in a believer 1" 



ARG. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



553 



in the soul, as the true Biblical standard of vital Chj'isti- 
anity. If we take the stanza above quoted from Mr. 
Wesley, and examine it, we will find that it teaches the 
doctrine of regeneration as a continual blessing, and 
nothing more. " A heart from sin set free " is the very 
language of St. Paul, in the sixth chapter of Romans, 
where he is w^ith open declaration speaking of justifica- 
tion and its results. He uses the word free " to express 
the state of grace in the heart, and he employs it con- 
stantly in connection with the word to justify; nor is 
there even an intimation of sanctification, as such, in 
that whole Epistle. In the same hymn Mr. Wesley says : 

" A heart in every thought renew'd, 
And full of love divine ; 
Perfect, and right, and pure, and good, 
A COPY, Lord, of thine." 

Now, since our Church has always held that regenera- 
tion is the renewing of the heart into the Divine image, 
the word ^'copy^^^ in the above stanza, corresponds ex- 
actly, and it shows that the poet could not express what 
he regarded as the sanctified state of the heart in any 
stronger language than the words we use when we speak 
of regeneration. His hymn stands in the hymn-book un- 
der the caption sanctification," and appears to have been 
designed, and is held by our Church as a poetical prayer 
for that blessing. But, like Mr. Watson's definition of the 
same doctrine, it must fall short of any more forcibleness 
than what is generally used to indicate regeneration. 
The first verse of the stanza says, " A heart IN every 
THOUGHT renewed." This, then, is a continual regenera- 
tion, incidentally expressed, as the standard of the Divine 
favor ; and it is no more, it says no more than is implied 
and set forth in a regenerated heart. The reader will 
also see that our views just agree with Christian experi- 
ence, and with the theology of our Church on this point, 
only we deny the sense in which our writers have always 



554 



KEVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



held sanctification ; for we deem regeneration to be equal 
to what they call entire sanctification, so far as any fur- 
ther purity of heart is required. Constant, effectual 
prayer is essential to the spiritual life of him who is born 
of God. This is all that can be afiirmed of him who is 
said to be wholly sanctified ; a fact which is proved by 
the words of Christian experience above given. 

(e) The figurative word " son," used by our Lord to 
convey the relation of one born of the Spirit, teaches a 
continital regeneration, as long as the soul dwells in the 
body, and no higher state. For when the inspired writers 
used words, they designed them to be taken in their 
proper and common sense. They employed such terms as 
would make the things of the kingdom of God appear 
plain. The expression " son," in its common sense as 
accepted among men, conveys the idea of a certain rela- 
tion of a child to another person called "father." Now, a 
son of an earthly father, at all ages of his life, whether he 
be one day old or of the age of one hundred years, always 
remains a son. And from his birth he is just as much an 
heir to the father's estate as at any other period of his 
life. Let us carry out the force of this word which the 
Scriptures employ, and see the result. WTien a soul is 
born of God the work is called " regeneration." The 
very Avord "born " implies a son, as indeed he is constantly/, 
unless he backslide. During his whole Christian pilgrim- 
age he is simply a "son," and thus keeps the same rela- 
tion to God as when first adopted. St. John, in a rapture 
of praise to God for his inexpressible love toward us, on 
account of the blessedness of our sonship with the Father, 
exclaimed, "Behold what manner of love the Father hath 
bestowed upon us, that Ave should be called the sons of 
God." 1 John iii, 1. This was as far as John, the beloved 
disciple, could see into this theological question. If he 
had any such idea in his mind as that which is conveyed 
by the phrase " entire sanctification," he very strangely 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



655 



seems to have expressed himself as one speaking of the 
benefits and blessings of our union with God in the fullest 
sense, in such terms as would indicate regeneration only. 
The phrase " sons of God" implies the relation of persons 
regenerated and nothing more. He told here all he could, 
as to the condition of men on earth in a saved relation to 
God, for in the next verse he says, " Beloved, now are we 
the SONS of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall 
be." So far as it relates to the sense, John mi^ht have 
said, ^' Beloved, now, in this life, we are regenerated, 
and after death it doth not appear to us what we shall be." 
Our Lord's Prayer is given to God's people to be used 
just as long as men are individually required to pray. But 
when they pray they are taught to say, Our Father." 
Does not this show that they are the sons of God as long 
as they are to use this prayer ? But are we not to use it 
when Ave are first begotten of God, however young in 
yoars we may be, and is it not equally appropriate if we 
maintain our same standing when we are one hundred 
years old ? Does not St. Paul teach us that " Abba, 
Father," is the word of praise in the mouth of him who is 
born of God ? The sons of God and those of the wicked 
one are strongly contrasted^ so that if the former do not 
imply that relation which the good, in the highest Scrip- 
tural sense, must always maintain, neither can the latter 
express the blackest and deepest degree of wickedness. 
" In this the children of God are manifest, and the 
CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL." We, therefore, conclude that 
regeneration is a continual state of grace with the Chris- 
tian, entirely independent of a second blessing, because, 
as long as we live, we never can say any good thing 
of the most devoted Christian that can not be said of 
the regenerated man, for he is a son of God. He can 
say " Abba, Father ;" this is his lifetime privilege. More 
can not be said of one supposed to be "wholly sanctified." 
The same kind of argument may be presented from the 



556 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



figurative language wherein our Lord says, "Ye are the 
branches." For since, as Mr. Watson says, " the change 
in regeneration consists in the recovery of the moral 
image of God upon the heart," to suppose any more 
moral purity than what is implied in this " change " to be 
occasioned by an additional work in the soul, is as unrea- 
sonable as to suppose that the " branches " of a "vine" 
can assume a nature greater and more perfect than the 
vine itself. The doctrine of the Vine to the branches is, 
" Abide in me ;" but to abide in Christ is to be a believer, 
as all admit, and hence simply regenerated, therefore, the 
force of the exhortation is, abide, or continue, as regen- 
erated persons in Christ. 

(/) In order to represent regeneration as a continual 
work in the soul, not as opposed to apostasy, but to the 
exclusion of the idea of entire sanctification as subsequent 
to it, and as a work that the Christian must have within 
him from the moment of his justification till he die, we now 
call attention to grammatical proof, from which we think 
there can be no appeal. We allude to the use of the 
perfect tense of verbs in Greek — the language in which 
the New Testament was at first written — to indicate time 
as related to the ijresent. We will first give the rule on 
which we found our argument, that the reader may clearly 
understand us. We will then call our proof in point, out 
of the original Greek Scripture. The authority of three 
eminent Greek scholars will be sufiicient. " The 'perfect 
. . . expresses an action which has taken place, indeed, 
at a previous time, but is connected, either in itself or in 
its consequences, or its accompanying circumstances, with 
the present time ; thus, zypa^'a, '/ ivrote^ signifies, indeed, 
the completion of the action ; but it does not determine 
whether the consequences of it, namely, the writing which 
I have written, be still existing or not. On the contrary, 
yiypacpa^ 'Z have tvritten,' besides indicating the fact of my 
having written, shows also the continued existence of the 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



557 



writing. In the same manner, yzYa.ij.riy.a^ ^1 am married f 
on the contrary, iydiiyirra, 'I married.^ Hence, xt/.rr)ij.at 
signifies ' I possess ; properly, 'I have acquired unto my- 
self, and the acquisition is still mine.' Again : The 
perfect is sometimes called a past, and sometimes a pres- 
ent; and neither without reason, since it marks the rela- 
tion of a past action to the prese7it time. The action which 
it denotes is past, but the state consequent, to which it also 
refers, is present; the tense is therefore in its time, as in 
many languages in its form, compound, having both a 
past and a present element. The comparative prominence 
of these elements varies in different languages, in different 
words in the same language, and in different uses of the 
same word. We remark, in general, that the present ele- 
ment has a far greater prominence in the Greek than in 
the English perfect."f Lastly : " The perfect is used in 
entire conformity with the rules of the language, when 
time past is placed in relation to the present; that is, 
when something past is intended to be designated as just 
now completed, so that the result of the action is con- 
ceived of as permanent. Particularly instructive are the 
following instances: Luke xiii, 2, duy.tirs^ on ol FaXilaio: 

ooTot dfj.apTwXol Ttapd Tzdyraq . . . eyi'^ovro, ore roiaura 

TzsTzovdaav^, that these Galileans were sinners . . . because 
they suffered; that is, not that they suffered merely once 
in time past, (that would be the aor.,) but that the conse- 
quences of that suffering (death) are still manifest; iv, 6, 

art iiw\ Ttapadidurac (i) ^qoo(Tia)^ that is, I am ill possession 

of it after it has been transferred to me, commissam habeo 
potestatem; the aor. would be, it was transferred to me, 
which would leave it uncertain whether it still remained 
in my possession ; v, 32, obx kXyjluOa xallaai dLxaioo^, I am 
not there, (on the earth,) in order to, etc., (aor., ^XOov, I 
came not, was not sent,) comp. vii, 20, 50 ; Gal. ii, 7, 

-Professor Anthon's new Greek Grammar, p. 480. 
f Crosby's Greek Grammar, g 579. 



558 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



7V£7z{(7r£Ofiai TO ioayyiXiov^ concreditum miJii haheo, etc., (his 
apostolic office continued.) Acts viii, 14; Mark x, 40, 
xi, 21, xvi, 4, iii, 26 ; John xii, 7, xiii, 12, xv, 24, xix, 
22, 30, XX, 21; Rom. iii, 21, v, 2, ix, 6; 1 Cor. vii, 14, 
xiv, 34; Col. iii, 3; Heb. i, 4, iii, 3, x, 14, xii, 2, vi, 14, 
ix, 26; 1 John v, 10. . . . Therefore, in citations 
of the prophecies of the Old Testament very often yiypar:- 
rocf, or xeyp7}ij.dTL(jrai^ Heb. viii, 5."* 

In these three established authors on the Greek lan- 
guage, it may be safe to say that we have the best 
authority of the kind published in Europe and America. 
We will now apply this rule just offered, which in sub- 
stance is the same according to our three authors, that we 
may see how it will suit our argument. It might, as a 
rule, be applied to many passages of Scripture to illus- 
trate our position. It is well to observe that the trans- 
lators of our English New Testament, in very many 
places, have properly translated the Greek perfect tense 
by the English present. The sense, according to the idiom 
of the two languages, respectively, demanded that they 
should ; for in such instances the inspired writers had ref- 
erence to present time, as to the effect of the verb, but 
they had reference to perfect or past time as to the action 
which it indicated. Had they translated in such places 
by the perfect tense, the sense would not have been clear 
to the English reader, if intelligible at all; at all events 
it would not have been adapted to the style of our own 
language. Keeping this fact in mind, we may illustrate 
our rule, and also prove our point of doctrine, by almost 
any passage where our translators have given us the 
present tense for the perfect of the original. For illus- 
tration, we will take that passage in Luke iv, 6, referred 
to by Dr. Winer in the foregoing quotation, where the 
devil tells Christ that the power is delivered unto me." 
The verb " is detivered,'' which in our language is present 

* Winer's Idioms of the Language of the New Testament, g 41,4. 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



559 



tense, in the Greek is perfect — Tzapadidorat, {paradedotai,) 
has been delivered. This, however, woukl not give any 
evidence that Satan had the power at the time of his 
conversation with our Lord. It wouhl only state and 
convey the sense that at some time previous to that inter- 
view he had received it, and the verbal translation which 
we give would not assure us that he has the power yet — 
that it is still in his possession while holding the conver- 
sation. The idea which he wished to convey to our Lord 
is this : The power has been delivered to me in time past, 
and I have it yet. Now, since a falsehood may be stated 
just as grammatically as a truth, we see, granting Satan 
to have had the power, that he still has it, and that it is 
just the same as when he received it; that he and it bear 
the same continual relation to each other. This text be- 
ing quoted, and its tense explained, simply for the sake 
of illustration and analogy, Ave now proceed to quote and 
set forth, according to our well-established rule as to the 
tense, a few such texts as will bring positive proof to the 
impending question. 

Let us also select another passage quoted before in Dr. 
Winer's rule, namely, Rom. v, 2: "Therefore being justi- 
fied by faith . . . through Christ; by whom also we 
have \j.(jyjjxaij.s.^>, we have had] access by faith into this 
grace wherein we stand." Observe, (1.) Our translators 
have given us this verb in the present tense in order to 
present the true idea of the apostle that we still have the 
access. (2.) St. Paul is here reasoning on justification, 
as all can see from the first verse where he actually uses 
the verb to justify, and the word " therefore " connecting 
his conclusion with his preceding able argument about 
justification by faith, and with the results following that 
blessing. (3.) His meaning, therefore, is, " We have had 
(in time past) access by faith into this (state of) grace 
(regeneration) wherein we stand (having access still) and 
rejoice,^' etc. Does not this teach that a soul once born 



560 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



of God, and not having backslidden, ahvays has that bless- 
ing and no other; that at all times, during life, it occu- 
pies the heart, and no other can be thought of or men- 
tioned consistently ? 

Further, let us take Rom. vi, 7, 6 yap a-oda\>(b'^ dsduai- 
o)-ai a-0 r77c kixapziaq^ For the one having died has been just- 
ified from sin. Having died, is the aorist tense here, and 
signifies an action done, accomplished. It means that the 
heart was as dead to sin, and as perfectly cleansed as the 
blood of Christ makes it to be. Has been justified, which, 
in our English version, is rendered " is freed," refers to 
an action past, perfected in time past, and remaining so at 
the present time. We learn from this text, 1. That the 
man dead to sin and he who is regenerated are identical. 
2. That however long ago since he died to sin, he still 
remains justified and is not represented as having any 
other blessing additional than what this relation implies; 
that is, the perfect form of the verb, corresponding to the 
English, has been justified, indicates the work of justifica- 
tion as done, finished at a point of time before the apos- 
tle writes; and that same tense form shows that the soul 
is conceived of as in that very same state yet — that the 
consequences of the long-ago pardon still remain — that 
neither the genius of the Greek perfect tense, nor the 
theology of the whole passage, requires the soul to attain 
unto any greater blessing than what is acknowledged to 
be a concomitant of justification. 3. While the context 
to this passage shows that St. Paul was arguing on justi- 
fication, and the verse itself actually using the proper 
form of the verb to justify, and Dr. Adam Clarke observ- 
ing these points, he also says, as we have elsewhere 
quoted, that this text teaches entire sanctification ; so 
that he, like Mr. Watson and Dr. Peck, could not sepa- 
rate the two blessings, as they held them. Nor can any 
one else who takes the same view. For they allow, and 
must give them the one characteristics or attributes ; and 



Akg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



561 



if this does not designate them as one, taking sanctifica- 
tion as an inward work, why do they prove the unity of 
the Holy Spirit with the Father, by giving him the same 
attributes as the Father? The two attributes to which 
we refer, in respect to regeneration and sanctification, 
both considered as inward works of grace, and as sepa- 
rate or distinct, are, that in each the moral image of 
God, as the inward work, is mentioned, and the keeping 
OF THE MORAL LAW, as the fruit of each, is also men- 
tioned. If these be separate blessings, as such, the same 
mode of reasoning would make it appear that the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Gods. We notice, 
also, 

1 John iii, 9 : " Whosoever is born [-a<r 6 ye^'ewrj/iivo^, , 
everi/ the one having been born~\ of God [in time past and 
remaining so at the present time] doth not commit sin, 
[on account of his integrity to God,] for his seed remain- 
eth in him, [the Holy Spirit, the same occupant that took 
possession of the soul when first regenerated,] and he can 
not sin, [morally speaking he can not, physically he can 
just the same as ever, if he will, as thousands have done,] 
because he is born of God, [yeyivvyjTai^ has been born of 
God in time pad, and remains so still\.^^ In view of the 
grammatical rule already mentioned, as to the perfect 
tense of the Greek verb, we feel some degree of confi- 
dence that this is the true meaning of this passage. 
Now, it makes no difi'erence how long ago one may have 
been born of God, St. John here represents him as being in 
that same state of the Divine favor, as to the name, na- 
ture, and DEGREE of the blessing — I mean degree of 
purity — which representation is made by the use of the 
perfect tense to indicate present time ; still he is simply 
a regenerated man. 1 John iii, 14 : " We know that we 
have [in time gone by] passed {jj.era^ef^yjxaixev'] from death 
unto life, [and that we remain in this state of life yet, as 
the fruit of it is manifest NOW by the fact that we] love 



562 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the brethren." The verb aya-cbrxs'^^ we love, being in the pres- 
ent tense, just corresponds vith the present idea in the per- 
fect tense of the former verb. So, also, 1 J ohn iv, 7, " Every 
one that loveth is born [/'e^^vvv^raf, has been horn and is 
born yet] of God, and knoweth God." Take notice, that 
^'knoweth" is present tense, and agrees with the doctrine 
that the soul born of God, perhaps years ago, is regarded as 
still in that very state. Therefore the grammatical author- 
ity of the original language of the New Testament proves 
that regeneration is the only blessing that God designed to 
communicate to man as the inheritance of his soul in the 
present life. If any man object to this argument, founded 
on the tense of the verb, in favor of the perpetuity of 
regeneration, let him bear in mind that w^e have pro- 
duced, perhaps, the best authority in the known world, as 
critics on the Greek language in general. For the Greek 
grammars mentioned are the substance of the ablest Ger- 
man writers, while Dr. Winer, whom we have quoted, 
stands supreme in his department. Of his work, called 
the " Idioms of the Language of the New Testament," 
Professor C. Hodge says it is a ''Critical Treasury." 
Professor Stewart says, " There is nothing like it. It is 
beyond all question a nonpariel of its kind." We there- 
fore console ourself with this view, that if we have in one 
respect the theology of some great men against us, we 
have the scientific labors of the most learned in our favor 
in many respects. 

7. In case the perpetuity of regeneration cease on ac- 
count of sin, by means of backsliding, that soul must go 
to God as at first in all cases. 

{a) The backsliding of persons in the highest degree 
of the Divine favor conceivable in this life, need not be 
called in question; for Judas, one among the twelve, was 
once a good man. He was chosen with the rest of the 
apostles from the mass of our Lord's private disciples. 
He was appointed to do mii^acles. Had he always been 



Arq. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



563 



wicked, the endowment of working miracles would have 
been incompatible with the Divine character. Satan did 
not enter into him till after he took the " sop." Christ 
said, I chose twelve of you, and one of you " is " a devil. 
Some say he always had a devil, but Christ did not say, 
one of you " was " a devil. St. Peter says that Judas 
" by transgression fell " from " this ministry and apostle- 
ship." Now, it is just as impossible for us to conceive 
of him falling from the ministry and apostleship, if he 
had never these in reality, as much as the other apostles, 
as it is impossible for us to conceive of an effect pro- 
duced without the necessary causes. A moral position to 
fall from " by transgression," must be antecedent and 
necessary to the fall ; and that his was a position of grace, 
as well as of oflSce, is as forcibly indicated in the impli- 
cation, as if set forth in open declaration; for it is said 
that he fell hy transgression, which shoAvs that he fell from 
grace — that he stood in covenant favor, and had a law to 
keep which he violated. The Scripture plainly teaches 
that he was lost. According to Christ's prayer the Father 
had given him to Christ. According to the same pra^^er 
Judas w^as lost: ''Those that thou hast given me I have 
kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, 
that the Scripture might be fulfilled." John xvii, 12. 
Some one is here said to be lost according to the pre- 
diction of a prophet. We are referred to Psa. cix, 7, 
where it is said, "When he is judged, let him be con- 
demned ;" V^^ i^pi^ns (b' hishshaphto yetse rafsha^ in his 
being judged, let him go out a guilty (man), and let his 
prayer become sin. St. Peter — Acts i, 16 — says the 
Holy Ghost spoke this ^'concerning Judas f and he obvi- 
ously has reference to this Psalm, because he quoted it — 
Acts i, 20 — in part. Therefore Judas, in the general 
judgment, shall go out from the presence of his Judge a 
guilty man. How can it be otherwise, since the last act 
of his life was to commit suicide? He actually hung 



564 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



himself. Dr. Robinson defines the word a-r^Yzaro^ {apen- 
xato,) to strangle 07ie^s self by hanging, to hang one's 
selfy In 2 Sam. xvii, 23, the Septuagint has the same 
Greek word exactly, that is used in Matt, xxvii, 5, con- 
cerning Judas, and there is no evidence that Ahitophel 
choked himself on grief; for he was calm. 

Our first parents fell also from a state of grace, and 
that, too, when already in very great favor with God ; 
more so than men are in the present life — but not as to 
purity of soul — because we, when regenerated into the 
same moral image of God in which Adam originally was, 
are nevertheless connected with bodies of flesh injured by 
the Fall, and more liable to temptation. So, when he fell, 
under such propitious circumstances, how much more 
easily may we fall ! He had the tempter presented 
merely external to his soul; we have the same, besides 
many internal spiritual infirmities, arising from a fallen 
nature, which are really enemies to us, but are not neces- 
sarily sin. It is incorrect to call such things sin; for 
Christ Avas subject to the same, " who knew no sin." 

Angels fell ; and they, too, similar to us, though of a 
higher order of being as to free moral agency, capability 
of doing right and wrong, accountability, spirituality, and 
being the subjects of moral government. And since they 
fell, under such gracious circumstances of their being, so 
much superior to us, let us "take heed lest we fall." 

(6) When having lost our regenerated condition, we 
must return to God and look for the same blessing again. 
David prayed, after he committed sin, "Restore unto me 
the joy of thy salvation." The word "restore " means to 
give back what one formerly had. It is a word of very 
common use. David lost the blessing of regeneration out 
of his soul. He called it the joy of God's salvation. To 
say that he had not lost it, would make his praying for its 
restoration appear absurd to any reasonable mind. The 
fact of his returning to God to seek the same blessing, as 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



565 



to name, that he once had, is a good lesson for all pious 
men who may by any means fall from grace. St. Jolm 
writes to the Church of Ephesus, who had left their " first 
love," " Repent and do the first ivorks^ This is the true 
doctrine : " If any man sin, we have an advocate with the 
Pather, Jesus Christ the righteous." 

(c) Those who object to the doctrine of falling entirely 
from grace, hold that a soul once in favor with God can 
never be finally and eternally lost. They argue their po- 
sition on the ground that such a one is a son of God, and 
that as a son is always the son of his earthly father, there- 
fore so shall he be always a son in grace who once becomes 
such. This view is very objectionable, and in fact it well 
illustrates the efi'orts that some make to support an inde- 
fensible theory; for, (1.) While they pretend to build their 
argument on analogy in the two cases, there is actually no 
analogy existing, as to the condition on which the sonship 
depends in each respectively; and condition is the very 
thing in dispute. Our sonship with God is conditional. 
We become his children on condition of our faith in him. 
" Without faith it is impossible to please him ;" impossible 
to ever receive the Spirit of adoption. And as we can not 
receive, and at first obtain, our sonship without the faith 
that justifies, so is it impossible to retain the relation of 
sons without faith continually exercised in the very same 
manner as we did to receive adoption at first. " A thou- 
sand oracles divine " might be adduced to prove this con- 
ditionality of our sonship with God from the time of our 
conversion till death ; such as, " The just shall live by 
FAITH ;" " Abide in me ;" I have fought a good fight, I 
have FINISHED my course, I have kept the faith." When 
our Savior prayed to the Father in behalf of his disciples, 
he said, " That thou shouldest keep them from the evil." 
What but a conditional sonship, after one becomes a child 
of God, is intended by the parable of the sower ? Finally, 
the man who received the one talent as fairly represents 



566 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PEEEECTION. [Part II. 



a recipient of the saving grace of God, as he \^'ho was 
intrusted "s\'ith the five talents ; and the fact that the 
former as well as the latter was put in possession of that 
talent, shows that at the time he received it to keep and 
improve, he was in the Divine favor and on probation, 
just as certainly as the one who had received more. The 
further fact that his Lord called him to an account and 
judged him equally with others, and treated him as he 
did, teaches that his was as fair a case for judgment as was 
that of others. The Judge is also represented as punish- 
ing fully ^ which implies that such punishment was due 
him, and that he might have avoided it. Now, his just 
sentence — a banishment " into outer darkness," with 
"weeping and gnashing of teeth" — was not inflicted 
because he had never been regenerated; for the one tal- 
ent as the representative of grace, implies that he had 
been made a son of God, if there is any sense or applica- 
tion to the parable at all ; but he was punished because he 
was an " uxprofitable servant," because he did not keep 
what he had obtained. The reprimand of his Judge was, 
Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the ex- 
changers." He was called a " wicked and slothful servant." 

Now, learn three things from this parable, (a) Sloth- 
fulness as to religion is icickedness. (b) One who has 
been once adopted into the family of God will be finally 
cast into "outer darkness" for such slothfulness. (c) The 
doctrine of " once in grace always in grace," and of 
unconditional sonship with God, from the day of our first 
regeneration till death, are positively contrary to the 
very design and scope of this parable. But, on the other 
hand, our sonship with the earthly father is wholly uncon- 
ditional. We have the privilege of choosing God as our 
heavenly Father, but we have no choice in the earthly 
father. Under every circumstance, from our birth to our 
grave, we remain sons of our earthly fathers, irrespect- 
ive of condition. No condition can ever aff*ect the mere 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



567 



relation of father and son on earth. We may be good 
and obedient, or most degraded and disobedient, yet in 
either case we remain sons. The case is, therefore, not 
parallel. It wants analogy just where it should have it. 

(2.) But the ground of the objector, as to the issue in 
hand, is absolutely wanting in fact. For while the merely 
natural relation of father and son must always exist the 
same, the son may, nevertheless, for some offense against 
the father, be disinherited, or, as is often the case, and 
very unjustly too, especially with parents educated under 
the influence of old tyrannical governments and laws, one 
may be disinherited simply because he is not the first- 
born. So, then, the true analogy in the comparison con- 
sists not in the mere abstract fact of our relation to the 
earthly aiid the heavenly Father as sons, but it depends 
in maintaining their constant favor on conditions. Now, 
as we would, as natural sons, finally obtain an inheritance 
on earth from our father through a constayit and becoming 
obedience to his commands, so, having been born of God, 
if we would gain the heavenly inheritance we must " keep 
the commandments." Had the objector made the point 
of analogy correctly, he would have spoiled his own ar- 
gument. The analogy consists not in sonship but in 
obedience. Take notice, our point of difference is not 
concerning natural and spiritual children at all ; it is 
respecting the analogy as to hotv to maintain the relation 
of sons both in nature and in grace. The true idea of the 
comparison rests in obedience, and not in relation; and 
so St. Paul says, "Be ye therefore followers of God as 
dear children [follow their parents]." 

(3.) If a perpetual sonship with our heavenly Father is 
to follow as a consequence of our having become his son 
once, simply because we are perpetually sons in the 
natural sense, then, on the same grounds, other points of 
similarity between a son in nature and a son in grace 
must also follow; therefore, Universalism will be well 



568 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. 



[Part II. 



accommodated, since, as our natural sonship, abstractedly 
considered, does not in the least depend on obedience to 
tbe parent, so neither need we obey God in any thing 
whatever after we have once been adopted as his sons. 
Murder, followed by the immediate penalty of the rope, 
would be the direct road to heaven ! And David, having 
committed adultery, spent his breath for naught when he 
prayed, " Restore to me the joy of thy salvation." 

8. The doctrine of the impossibility of falling finally 
from grace, is further disproved by, first, the naturae of 
the human mind. Our mind is capable, in all affairs, of 
laying aside one thing and assuming another. This is 
altogether optional with us ; and those who adhere to the 
mipending doctrine of ''final perseverance" should show 
why the mind should, and wherein it does differ in its oper- 
ations as to religion from its operations in common, prac- 
tical, and scientific pursuits. This argument we base on 
what we presume will be admitted, namely, that a constant 
faith in God is necessary in order to please him. Secondly. 
Several general considerations make the possibility of a 
ruinous fall from grace appear plain, (a) The every-day 
facts of such around us. (b) The examples of such in Scrip- 
ture, (c) The many solemn warnings given to God's people 
to keep the faith, (d) Prayers for their continuance in 
the love of God. (e) The apostle's own fears lest after 
he had preached to others he should become a castaway. 
(/) The instruction of pastors to teachers for their 
Christian development, the neglect of which caused St. 
Paul to so solemnly declare the consequences of apostasy 
to the Hebrews, as arising from their ignorance, (g) The 
doctrine of temptation ,on the part of Satan, who is 
"subtile," and yet he tries to deceive God's people as 
he tried Christ — a foolish thing for him to do if men 
can not fall from grace, (h) The influence of the Holy 
Spirit to help us against our foes, (i) The necessity 
of personal prayer "without ceasing." (j) The economy 



Aeg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



569 



provided for such as may fall into sin after justification, 
found in the Divine advocacy : " If any man sin, we have 
an advocate with the Father," by whom we must approach 
him again, (k) If a complete fall from grace is impos- 
sible, and if this impossibility is Scriptural, men should 
preach it. Then, the results may be readily conceived of, 
since the world is bad enough as it is with all the preach- 
ing that we hear just to the opposite. 

9. What has already been said in the whole course of 
these arguments is not contrary to the Scriptural doctrine 
of a groivtJi in grace. But this phrase being somewhat 
ambiguous, occurring but once in the Scripture, namely, 
2 Peter iii, 18, the expression Christian growth will be 
equally comprehensive and perhaps more easily explained, 
which for convenience we will adopt. 

(a) Christian growth, as a thing about which men have 
talked and written so much and practiced so little, let it 
signify what it may, can not mean a more perfect work 
of the Holy Spirit as to purity of heart than regenera- 
tion. For, first, there is no possibihty of such a thing 
from the nature of regeneration as taught by the advo- 
cates of entire sanctification themselves, since they say 
it is " the recovery of the moral image of God upon the 
heart." The doctrine taught in this quotation can not 
admit of growth in the sense of more purity. The Divine 
nature can not increase, nor can the image " of that 
nature any more than infinity can. The " moral image 
of God" can not be increased or diminished as to nature; 
in all his attributes he is unchangeable. Less than his 
image could not be ''the image of God;" more than this 
is, to human understanding, inconceivable. Second, from 
the perpetuity of regeneration, as before argued. Christian 
growth can not mean an increase of purity above the 
new birth. It has been shown from the use of the per- 
fect tense, by inspired writers, and acknowledged by the 

best of grammatical authority, that this blessing, while 

48 



670 REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTIOX. [Paet II. 



the soul does not backslide, keeps forever enthroned 
therein, and is at all times the proper and Scriptural 
expression to convey to us the idea of one having the 
greatest favor, true Scriptural communion, fellowship, and 
hfe in God. Since this is the proper word to convey 
such an idea, growth, beyond what the term regeneration 
implies, is, necessarily, inconceivable and unscriptural. 

(b) Christian growth, from the very term itself, must 
be something analogous. Inspired writers have used the 
word " GROW/"' which must have been employed in an 
every-day signification, common and familiar to all. Such 
a sense agrees with their custom of writing; for while our 
Lord and his apostles used parables and customs of things 
then existino: amono^ men to teach the thinors of the kin or- 
dom of heaven, they also used single zcords in their com- 
monly-received signification. These we are to understand 
analogically; for example, the words "justification" and 
" condemnation," and such like, our learned commentators 
say are "forensic" or legal terms. They are as express- 
ive of man's relation to God, respectively, as they are 
of his relation to the court of civil jurisprudence. Now, 
Christian groivth may be regarded on the same ground, 
from an analogical stand-point. 

(1.) The word growth, in general, means an approxima- 
tion toward that which constitutes completeness in the 
subject thereof. This is a definition of our own, inde- 
pendent of any dictionary, and perhaps can not be fairly 
objected to unless it can be shown that what defect it 
may have will not aff'ect the argument when applied to 
nature as well as when applied to grace. 

(2.) This definition seems to be applicable to both vege- 
tahles and animals. As soon as we see the young tree, the 
tender grass, and the immature fruit, judging from the 
testimony of our own senses, we at once say that such 
things have not yet received their full growth, but we say 
that they are approximating toward that completeness 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



571 



which belongs to them respectively. So when we see the 
young beast of the field, the young fowl of the air, and 
the young of the human species, we say that they have 
not yet attained unto their full growth^ but are approxi- 
mating toward their respective completeness. If it is ob- 
jected to this definition, that it contemplates growth only 
as an approximation toward completeness, and would never 
arrive at the completeness itself, we answer, first, as ap- 
proximation toward a given point ceases to be approxima- 
tion when it arrives at that point, so when growth ceases 
to be approximation, it is presumed that it has reached the 
goal of its completeness in the subject. Second. Chris- 
tian completeness, or perfection, and Christian growth are 
two things; for a Christian may, and is required of God 
to be, perfect everj day of his life, in the sense of keep- 
ing the whole moral law, as the fruit of his regeneration, 
in the sense of loving the Lord his God with all his heart, 
mind, soul, and strength, and his neighbor as himself. His 
growth never goes beyond this, as the fruit of his faith; but 
his perfection to-day must expand beyond what it was yes- 
terday, so as to give the groAvth a chance to grow. Thus, 
his perfection to-day may fill the Divine law, and to-morrow 
it must fill it also ; but that of to-morrow must be as much 
greater than that of to-day, as his capacity to-morrow is 
supposed and required to be greater than that of to-day. 

Two apples may each be perfect; they may be plucked 
from the same tree ; they may be equally ripe, equally 
delicious ; as to quality exactly identical ; but one may 
be larger than the other — that is, growth, by approxima- 
tion in both respectively, may have reached the culmina- 
ting point. It is, therefore, self-evident that their perfec- 
tion and their growth are not identical ; for in the former 
we find them the same, and in the latter there is a difi'er- 
ence. And if this is not really a fact in nature, our 
argument is not in the least affected, since it appears 
perfectly clear as a conception of the mind. And from 



572 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



the day that they appeared in the blossom till they were 
ripe fruit, they daily fulfilled the natural law peculiar to 
their growth; and thus, from their first appearance till 
ripe, were perfect apples, as such; while the approxima- 
tion toward completeness of to-day over yesterday con- 
stitutes their growth, 

(c) Growth, as an approximation toward completeness, 
holds admirably as to man. 

(1.) Man is a triune being. As he was originally cre- 
ated like his Maker, as to moral image, so is he like him 
as a trinity. He is a man pJiysieally^ as certainly as he 
has a body of flesh, as truly as the medical college exists 
where men are instructed concerning this earthly taber- 
nacle, and as obviously as the medicine and the treatise 
thereof pertain to the healing of this physical man. He 
is a man mentally, as sure as the school-house exists with 
a view to the development of the mind, and the multipli- 
cation of books as its productions. That he is a man 
morally^ the Decalogue, as the rule of his morality, the 
church where the same is expounded and enforced, and 
his own consciousness all sufficiently show. 

(2.) Growth, of any kind, is logically an effect produced 
in the subject through the use of the proper means. 
This use is the cause. Nothing in natural philosophy 
can be more absurd than to conceive of an effect with- 
out an adequate cause. Such is the same as to sup- 
pose our own existence, and that of the natural world, 
without that " Great First Cause." 

(3.) Growth, as an effect of the use of proper means 
as a cause, appears in animals and in vegetables. The 
beast of the field, if put in a pen and not fed, will not 
only cease to grow, but will fall away and die, while on 
good pasture he will grow to his full size; which growth 
is a result of good usage, as the cause of the effect. 
This effect is a result arising from a cause appointed for 
the animal creation, by a general law of nature — by the 



Aeg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



573 



GOP of the natural world. The plant also grows, and 
this growth is an eflfect or result arising from the necessary 
causes which produce it, such as good soil to attract the 
essential properties from the atmosphere — sun and shower. 
Without these natural causes in necessary and in suffi- 
cient proportion, growth, the effect, must cease. 

(4.) In this manner man is seen to grow in every re- 
spect; and in his case, also, growth is the effect arising 
from the use of the proper means as the causes. He 
grows physically^ because he takes a sufficient quantity 
of nutritious food from his birth, as the necessary thing 
to produce such an effect, without which the effect ceases, 
and he dies. As a mental being, his powers expand, if 
the mind is fed on the food necessary to its growth, such 
as the course of study usually prescribed in the common 
school, the higher branches of the college and university. 
He groivs mentally ; and this growth is the effect pro- 
duced by partaking of the prescribed means. On the 
other hand, if left uneducated, his mind is dark, and 
growth, the effect, is never produced, because the essen- 
tial cause has not been employed. Like the poor op- 
pressed sons of Africa, he can never show much effect, 
as such, mentally ; not that the mind of the negro is 
darker than that of any other people as a nation, on ac- 
count of a want of culture, as some, from an erroneous, 
political, pro-slavery, antiscriptural, party-serving, shame- 
ful, diabolical, and heathenish policy, suppose; for the 
deceived Catholic Irishman, the English collier, the igno- 
rant German, and the indolent backwoods American are 
just as degraded, and in many respects not half as po- 
hte as their black brother, "made of one blood,"* 
created by the same God, and redeemed by the same 
Savior; who, also, has shown himself capable of educa- 
tion, of self-government, and of the use of arms, as well 
as those who think that it is God's glory that they should 

* Acts xvii, 26. 



574 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



enslave, degrade, and oppress him. Let no reasonable 
man regard the degradation of the negro as native, till 
he account for the miserable mental and moral degrada- 
tion of his white brother — let him look at home first. 
The great hue and cry about "negro equality" will be 
somewhat apologized for when the fact becomes more 
generally known to those who make this strange noise, 
that in very many instances either they or their ances- 
tors were themselves first fed at the breast of a negro 
nurse. 

(5.) If growth, as above defined, be an effect arising 
from the use of the means respectively, as the necessary 
causes in natural things, why not consider it as an effect 
in the same sense in spiritual things, since man is seen 
to be a trinity? And he need not doubt the Divine Trin- 
ity because it looks to be mysterious, unless he also 
doubt his own threefold existence — equally three in one. 
And since each part of his triune being, as far as it re- 
lates to the two parts mentioned, is capable of growth, and 
must have the means, as the cause^ to produce this effect 
in these two parts of his nature, is it not equal to dem- 
onstration that he must have the means also as the nec- 
essary cause to produce the spiritual and moral growth 
as an effect ? And, since, if he do not receive the causes 
as a physical and as an intellectual man, necessary to the 
growths in these respects each, he dwindles and perishes 
in them respectively, is it not evident, from the law of 
analogy, and of natural proportions in his being, that he 
must employ the appointed means in order to grow mor- 
ally, that is, to grow the proper Christian growth? Will 
any one be so inconsistent as to give the word "grow," 
as used in Scripture, another sense when applied to the 
moral man, from what he must give it when applied to 
the physical and the intellectual? Nor can any one ob- 
ject to this manner of treating the Christian as a moral 
man, the same as we treat of him physically and mentally^ 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



575 



since Divine inspiration has represented him as a moral 
child and as a moral man also. St. Paul says, ^''Breth- 
ren, do not ye become children as to the mind, but as to 
wickedness act ye the child, but as to the mind become ye 
perfect^ 1 Cor. xiv, 20. That is, become perfect men. 
And Peter says, "As new-born babes, desire [ye] the 
sincere milk of the Word, that ye may grow thereby [to 
be men]." God has used certain terms, in a metaphor- 
ical sense, to convey to us the true spiritual sense. We 
are as much bound to take "babes" and "men" in this 
passage, in a metaphorical signification, as we are the 
word " milk." 

(d) If we are correct in the foregoing arguments, 
in saying that Christian growth is an effect accruing 
from the use of proper means as the cause, the Scrip- 
ture will sustain the argument. If incorrect, it may not 
be tenable. 

(1.) Some passages w^ill now be quoted to show that 
Christian growth is a result or effect arising from its true 
cause. As new-born babes, the rational and sincere milk 
desire ye, in order that by it ye may grow. 1 Peter ii, 2. 
Observe, they are first to desire the milk ; secondly, this 
is for a final purpose, as a result or effect to be produced, 
which final purpose is expressed by the final conjunction 
ya, (hijia,) that, or in order that. In other words, " the 
rational and sincere milk " makes the Christian child — the 
young convert — grow to be a full-grown Christian man. 
"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have 
need that one teach you again, which be the first princi- 
ples of the oracles of God; and are become such as have 
need of milk, and not of strong meat." Ileb. v, 12. 
Here the Hebrew Christians are represented as showing 
the effect in the opposite direction ; that is, because they 
did not use the means, as the cause by which the Chris- 
tian is to grow, they dwindled. Just so, both mind and 
body also will dwindle when they do not receive that which 



576 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. 



[Pabt II. 



gives them growth. It is said to be a poor rule that will 
not work both ways. 

Matt. XXV, 14-30 : This reference embraces the par- 
able in which our Lord exhibits the kingdom of heaven by 
the distribution of talents. The one who had received the 
five talents, by his use of them as the cause, gained five 
more as the efi'ect. So did he who had received the two ; 
he to whom one had been given, did not make use of the 
means of growth, as the ti'ue cause, and by such neglect 
he became the subject of a just and corresponding pun- 
ishment as the efiect — Take therefore the talent from 
him, and give it to him which hath ten talents." Moral 
causes produce moral effects, which latter are moral 
growth, just as certainly as physical and mental, causes 
produce physical and mental effects or growths. Feed 
the child on good food, and the physical man by growth 
is developed; feed him on books, and the mental man is 
developed; feeJ him morally by proper culture, as if of 
the one talent to be improved, and the moral man soon 
receives his full growth. 

John XV, 2 : " Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, 
he taketh away ; and every branch that beareth fruit, he 
purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.'' The 
branch, on its part, is to bear fruit. If it do this, the 
Father, who is the husbandman, verse 1, will "purge'' it. 
Dr. Robinson defines this word, " To cleanse a tree or vine 
from useless branches, io irrune.'^ He who bears the fruit 
which characterizes regeneration, God will prune, as a 
husbandman does a well-bearing vine, for the final end 
that it may bring forth more fruit. The Almighty pruned 
Job in this way, by causing in his providence the loss of 
all earthly things calculated to retard his spiritual growth. 
Observe, it is God who brings about the effect. Man 
must simply bear the fruit as the cause. God will see 
that the eff'ect is rightly produced. 2 Peter i, 8: "For 
if these things be in you, and abound, they make you 



Arg. XXIV.] 



■ CONCLUSION. 



577 



that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the 
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." The cause will 
produce the effect. 1 Kings iii, 13 : " And I have also 
given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches 
and honor ; so that there shall not be any among the 
kings like unto thee all thy days." Here, again, God 
adds extra blessings as the effect, because Solomon's ask- 
ing wisdom was the cause. 

(2.) Other blessings in religion as effects plainly accrue 
to us from the use of the prescribed means as the cause, 
such as peace, joy, love, adoption ; the cause being faith 
in God. Why not, therefore, these other blessings per- 
taining to growth? In other words, if God give us all 
we desire, as to inward grace, in answer to saving faith — 
the prescribed means to such attainment — will he not also 
give us all things, as to outward grace, if we have the 
outward religion, namely, if we bear fruit? 

(3.) The analogy of nature teaches us that effects, as 
results over which we have no control, come from God, 
on the sole condition that we accede to the means to be 
employed. Our use of these means is the cause in each 
case, and we leave all the effects and results with God. 
The husbandman sows his wheat, plants his corn, and sets 
out his orchard, as duties which may be termed causes in 
the nature of things devolving on himself, but all the 
effects and results he looks for from the bountiful Giver 
of all blessings., knowing that he himself can do no more. 
" It is God that giveth the increase," even in nature as 
"well as in grace. 

(e) In what Christian growth consists, as an approxi- 
mation to perfection,* remains to be considered. This we 
understand to be. The utmost effort of all one^s poivers to 
INCREASE and ABOUND iH LOVE, SO as to fulfill the moral 

* By the vtovdi perfection y I here mean the utmost point of completion at 
■which a faithful Christian can be conceived of arriving by a lifetime's de- 
votion to God. 

49 



578 REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTION. [Pabt II. 



law of God as the fruit of his justified relation and re- 
generate state. This is our definition of a growth in 
grace or Christian growth. But it must have the touch- 
stone of Scripture applied to give it value and authority. 
''And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love 
one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do 
toward you ; to the end he may establish your hearts un- 
blamable in hohness before God.'' 1 Thess. iii, 12. No- 
tice, first, the heart is to increase and abound; second, 
this advancement is to be in love; third, it is for a final 
end, to establish your hearts before him in love, so as to be 
unblamable in holiness. But the apostle goes on in chap, 
iv, 1, to give us more proof : " Fui'thermore then we be- 
seech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, 
that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and 
to please God, so ye would abound more and more.'' 
Yerses 9, 10 : Ye yourselves are taught of God to love 
one another. And indeed ye do it toward all the breth- 
ren which are in all Macedonia; but we beseech you, 
brethren, that te increase more and more." We must 
do more in acts of love and mercy to-day than we did 
yesterday, if such is within our power — *' always abound- 
ing in the work of the Lord.'' 

Prov. iv, 18: ''The path of the just is as the shining 
light, that shineth MORE and more unto the perfect day." 
Observe, it is the path, that is, the divinely-appointed way 
of moral living, that gets brighter to him who is justified 
and regenerated, and who walks in this path — the moral 
law. He will get daily more capacity of understanding 
in Divine things. 2 Pet. i, 7, 8 : "Add ... to 
godliness brotherly-kindness; and to brotherly-kindness 
charity [a^ar^jy, love']. For if these things be in you and 
abound.'' Here is the point: abound in love and broth- 
erly-kindness, which will exclude every sin forbidden by 
the Decalogue. 2 Cor. ix, 8-10 : '* And God is able to 
make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always 



Am. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



579 



having all-sufficiency in all things, may abound to every 
good work. . . . Now he that ministereth seed to 
the sower, both minister bread for your food, and multiply 
your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your right- 
eousness, \_diy.aco(7UurjCj justificati07l].^' " AbOUND TO EVERY 
GOOD WORK " INCREASE THE FRUITS OF YOUR JUSTIFICA- 
TION." To-morrow increase them over what they are to- 
day, inasmuch as more is expected of the child the 
stronger and more sensible it becomes. 

Matt, xiii, 12 : " For whosoever hath, to him shall be 
given, and he shall have more abundance; but Avhoso- 
ever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that 
he hath." 

Matt. XXV, 20 : " Behold I have gained besides them 
five talents more." Here is the point: keep gaining in 
quantity, not in quality. So it is in respect to the growth 
of body and mind, as well as of the morals ; these increase 
in size and extent respectively, but not, so far as we can 
see, in nature. In verse 16 it is said that he "went and 
traded with the same, [that is, with the five talents as his 
original stock in trade,] and made them other five tal- 
ents." With what w^e have, let us keep making more. 
If persons who think that they have no talent for pray- 
ing in their families and in public, would only trade with 
the one that has been given them, so well adapted to cir- 
cles of social conversation about things of less import- 
ance, they might " make that other talent." 

Phil, i, 9 : " And this I pray, that your love may 
abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all 
JUDGMENT. . . . Being filled with the fruits of right- 
eousness [dLxaioaovfjc;, justification'] Avhich are by Jesus 
Christ unto the glory and praise of God." Finally, 
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." Matt, 
xxii,. 37. Here is our service which we owe to God rep- 
resented to us as always to be with the totality of our 



580 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



powers. But this is required of the "babe" in Christ, 
who in so doing is perfect. He is -riXstoc, (teleios,) per- 
fect; and, when he has been forty years in the service 
of Christ, he is to serve the Lord with the totality of 
his powers as when a babe, and then he will be W/sro;-, 
(teleios,) peifect still. During the forty years of his serv- 
ice to God, his soul never gets any more 2?ure than when 
first regenerated, because the Divine image, in point of 
purity, can not be surpassed. His experience, knowl- 
edge, and more intimate acquaintance with God have 
established him, toojether with his havinor overcome a 
thousand temptations, and in this manner his capacity is 
increased for serving God. His Lord now requires of 
him, in one respect, just what he did when he was a babe 
in Christ, namely, the service of " all " the soul, and 
"all" the mind, and "all" the heart. Nature is teach- 
ing this all the time. This is called in the Christian, 
" bearing much fruit." The small and young apple-tree 
may bear fruit to the utmost of its capacity and strength ; 
in some years after when it shall have enlarged, it bears 
fruit, and much more than when young and small; but it 
now does not exceed its strength nor capacity for bearing 
any more than it did in former years. Nor does the hus- 
bandman expect more from it than according to capacity, 
but he expects more in quantity than he did when the 
tree was of less ability to bear because of its growth. 
So it is in grace. " Unto whomsoever much is given, of 
him shall be much required." The man who received the 
two talents did just as much, in one sense, when he 
gained two more, as the one did who gained five. He 
doubled his stock in trade, and that is all the other did. 
In the day of eternity many will say, " I was afraid, and 
went and hid my talent in the earth;" of whom the Judge 
will say, " Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer 
darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 
"While this view of the subject is supported by Divine 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



581 



revelation, showing the true sense in which growth is to 
be understood, as to the moral man, analogy holds the 
same as to the physical man. The child may labor all the 
day to the utmost of its strength, and yet how little manual 
labor will be performed ! When he has grown to be a man 
he may labor no more intensely, to do a day's work, than 
when a child, and yet the physical man having been devel- 
oped, and having become strong, he does a great deal of 
hard labor in one day. So it is with the child and the man 
mentally. When the youth begins to calculate in figures, 
he labors with all his mental powers to do a question in 
one of the fundamental rules of arithmetic. In many 
instances he fails, and the teacher must help him. As to 
thinking, he has done his utmost. When he grows up, 
having overcome and mastered all the rules of arithmetic, 
he enters into the higher abstractions of mathematical cal- 
culation. Now, algebra and the propositions of geometry 
are far more easy to his understanding, so well developed, 
than the simple things of arithmetic were when he was a 
child. The professor of mathematics in the college and 
university expects more mental labor of the pupil in his 
class than the common-school teacher does of the child, yet 
each expects mental labor of the pupil according to capacity. 

The analogy of nature, further, in plants and animals, 
shows, that growth, as an approximation toward complete- 
ness, in the subjects, approaches nearest that complete- 
ness, as our heau ideal of it, when such subjects arrive 
nearest the fulfillment of those natural laws by which 
they are to be judged as complete. For in nature there 
must be an ideal standard of some sort, as a law of com- 
pleteness, which must be fulfilled to the perfection of each 
subject respectively. Now, if a moral law, to be kept to 
the utmost of man's capacity from day to day, be not the 
law by which he shall be adjudged as perfect or as im- 
perfect, in the sight of his Maker, we are not capable of 
defining our position. 



582 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAX PERFECTIOX. [Paet II. 



(/) Let growth in Christianity mean what it may, 
there are nevertheless t^o conclusions: (1.) That we need 
not be troubled about the effect of well-doing, any more 
than a mourner in Zion need be concerned about being 
happy should God bless him, when his only concern need 
be to beliere in his Savior, and God \vill attend to all the 
results. Let us then see to the cause — our keeping the 
moral law — and the effect, in the hand of a faithful God, 
^vill take care of itself. (2.) We may conclude, let men 
say what they will about a growth in grace, the short 
way of telling the whole matter is just to keep the moral 
law, as our duty and as the fruit of justification; then we 
will grow, as certainly as food causes the body to grow 
and exercise in science the mind. Lispired Authority 
seals this truth, " If ye keep my commandments, ye shall 
abide in my love.'"' John xv, 10. Now, St. Peter says, 
if we do not add to our faith virtue, knowledge, temper- 
ance, etc., that we shall backslide. But Christ says, in 
the above quotation from John, that we shall " abide in 
his love'' if we keep his commandments; therefore, the 
keeping of the commandments implies every conceivable 
growth in Christianity, as set forth by Peter. This is 
obvious, as before argued, by keeping the commandments 
with ALL our several powers. 

(^7) Finally, it should not be forgotten in this division 
of our conclusion, to notice Christian growth in its con- 
ditional sense. We will first notice growth in the abstract 
as a condition of life. In the vegetable kingdom what is 
here stated holds good. AYhen the flower, the fi'uit, 
the shrub, the tree, the grass, etc., cease to grow, they 
immediately begin to decay, lose their charm, and die. 
When the animal also, whether man, as such, or the brute 
creation, has attained unto that stage of animal growth 
that he ceases to grow, he then is what we call " past his 
prime," and in a short" time life is a burden, and he dies. 
Man, as an intellectual being, is the same in this respect. 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



683 



When he loses his mental vigor, through mere infirmity 
of the flesh, so that his mind becomes too infirm for fur- 
ther growth, we may regard him as near his final end. 
Now, from experience and from our observance of nature, 
as to all things around us, we see that growth, in its sev- 
eral aspects, is absolutely essential to life, is a condition 
of life. So it is as to Christianity. This may be argued, 
(1.) From the consideration that we have already found 
man to be a trinity, that the moral man is one of the 
persons in this trinity, and that without this moral nature 
it is conceded he will not only fail to reach the true 
status of man, according to the received opinion of the 
wisest and best of his race, but he w^ill absolutely fail to 
meet the end of his creation. It is not a mere human 
system of morals that constitutes the true moral man; 
but it is Christianity in earnest, enjoyed and practiced in 
its healthy and saving influences in the soul that identi- 
fies genuine morality. This moral man, we see from an 
analogical stand-point, must grow^, or he must die a moral 
death. All nature declares it. 

(2.) Our experience and observation may prove that 
growth is a necessary condition of spiritual life. Thou- 
sands are every year converted to God, and we may say 
that thousands backslide. This is not because they were 
not soundly converted, as some scofiingly say, who do 
not follow or agree with us on Church usage, as to this 
subject, and who call all our protracted meetings scenes 
of excitement wherein the convert labors under mere 
delusion; for the apostles themselves surely did not delude 
the people, and yet men under their ministry, and even 
that of our Lord, were just as much inclined to backslide 
as they are under the ministry of evangelical preachers 
of our own times. A Church that is truly evangelical in 
its workings need not be surprised if indeed it has some 
backsliders, because through its active operations it slides 
them forward. This may serve as a brief apology in 



584 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



case the Church of our choice should seem to have a 
good proportion of this class. Backsliding, we grant, is 
deplorable; but does not a Church having no backsliders, 
,as historical of its career, or connected with it, look 
rather suspicious? 

But the true reason why men backslide is because they 
do not make use of the means, as the necessary cause of 
Christian and spiritual growth. They thus perish in fail- 
ing to discharge duty; such as reading the Scriptures, 
private prayer, the bearing of every cross, and attention 
especially to the public means of grace — preaching, prayer 
meetings, and the ever-indispensable class meetings of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, which have always been, 
in the peculiar dispensation of Divine Providence to us, 
as so many oases to the Methodist caravan in passing 
over the desert to the New Jerusalem. Many, the fruits 
of whose efforts for novelty would much better characterize 
them than those of their piety, would fain forever abrogate 
the class meeting, and thus settle the Church, at once, in 
that lukewarm state in which there is little or no spirit- 
ual growth. The inJBluence of such candidates for self- 
aggrandizement is about as useful to the Church as that 
of John C. Calhoun was to the State — bringing in their 
nullification bill to break down one of the strongest spir- 
itual pillars in the ecclesiastical government of God on 
earth, to promote moral starvation and spiritual death in 
all the members of the body, to wither the branches of 
the living vine, and quench the fire of heaven already 
burning and blazing on the altar of many thousand hearts. 
What conceivable objection can any man have to meeting 
his brethren once a week, in order to talk about religion, if 
he actually enjoys it ? I am actually obliged to make these 
remarks, as one writing in defense of spiritual growth as 
essential to spiritual life. For since growth is an effect, 
we must oppose every thing that would remove its cause. 
Class meetings have proved themselves, " time whereof the 



Abg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



585 



memory of man runneth not to the contrary," to be the 
most cardinal feature, not only of Methodism, as a prac- 
tical system, but also of vital godliness and of Christian 
growth. While observation shows us where they are 
attended 'to in due form at the present day, the members 
of the Church are more pious, better Christians, observe 
the duties of Christianity better, support the ministry 
better, and, in a word, are better every way. 

(3.) Scripture proves that growth in grace is absolutely 
necessary to spiritual life. There can be no stand-point 
in our Christian pilgrimage. Some, it is true, never have 
any other Christian experience than that at some time in 
the past, perhaps ten, twenty, or forty years ago, they 
were blessed, and that is the last of it. But the true 
Christian " walks by faith." Our Lord says, " He that 
abideth in me, the same bringeth forth much fruit." You 
will observe here, that he who abides in Christ and the 
man who brings forth much fruit are one and the same. 
Again he says, "If a man abide not in me, [which is the 
same as to say, if a man bring not forth much fruit,] he 
is cast forth as a branch and is withered." He that 
lacketh these things is blind, and can not see afar oif, 
and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." 

II. We now take up the second general division of our 
conclusion as to perfection. We notice, 

1. Its attainableness in this life. This has been a ques- 
tion of much dispute. Some hold that it, or entire sancti- 
fication, which is believed to be the same, may be attained 
unto at any period subsequent to justification. Others, 
again, maintain that it is not attainable, as they understand 
it, till death, or about that time. For our own part, we 
think that, as such, it is not attainable at ally and never 
was possessed by any man. Our proof has been given in 
the arguments already advanced. Hence much seemingly 
unnecessary contention has existed which, we presume, 
has grown out of a misapprehension of the doctrine. We 



586 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



consider, nevertheless, that Christian perfection and sanc- 
tification, as taught in the Bible, are attainable. If the 
putting away of strange gods; if the serving of God 
alone, as opposed to heathen worship ; if not taking the 
name of God in vain ; if the keeping of the Sabbath-day 
holy ; if the honoring of father and mother ; if not killing ; 
if not bearing false witness against our neighbor; if not 
coveting, are points of Christian character, as the sign of 
justifying faith, to which we can attain in this life, then, 
* perfection and sanctification, being virtually the same, and 
both the fruit and sign of regeneration, are attainable be- 
fore death. If these duties can not be performed while we 
live, then, as sure as the parts are equal to the whole, per- 
fection, being their sum, can not be attained in this life. 
It has been before said, that the two graces in question 
are the same. So far as it relates to the keeping of the 
moral law, this holds true; for in obedience to that law, 
they are both embraced, yet a passing observation seems 
needful. Perfection refers, more particularly, to that part 
to be performed within the law which respects our duty 
toward our neighbor, and our advancement in the teach- 
ings of the Bible — the partaking of what is called " strong 
meat." Sanctification means more especially that part 
of obedience to the law which respects our abstaining 
from all abominations, so called, and from things which 
are unclean in the sight of God, as idolatry and fornica- 
tion. Not to be perfect, in the abstract, is more particu- 
larly to be wanting in charity toward our fellow-men, and 
to be wanting, generally, in Christ-like deeds of mercy. 
Matt. V, 43-48. Not to be sanctified, is to be contigu- 
ously unclean. 1 Thess. iv, 1-7. Although this distinc- 
tion may be seen in Scripture, and that rather faintly, 
such is not of much account, since both Christian perfec- 
tion and sanctification are included in the one phrase, 
^'Keep the commandments." This much we say under 
the first minor division of this part of our conclusion, 



Arq. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



687 



because every talker and Avriter on the question has con- 
tended that Christian perfection, according to his own 
views, is either attainable in life, or very little, if at all, 
before death; thereby presenting a difference of opinion, 
and so leaving the question open for further debate. 

2. We argue the possibility of one being perfect in this 
life, in the s,ense of obedience to the moral law, as the 
proof of his faith, as opposed to the Calvinistic theory 
that man can not keep the law. If we can not keep the 
commandments in this life without breaking them daily, 
in thought, word, and deed," then, of course, as Ave 
regard the doctrine, it would not appear to be a grace 
attainable while we live in the body. Calvinistic wTiters 
on this subject seem to have manifested some weakness. 
We will quote a number of them, as given by Dr. Peck, 
placing the references to their works in parentheses. 
These are none the less untrue, as Calvinistic statements, 
because we take them from Dr. Peck's book. We do it 
simply for convenience, as he has made his selections and 
quotations with marked care. He says, " Calvinistic 
divines, . . . from the days of the Genevan re- 
former down to the present time, have explicitly denied 
the attainableness, in this life, of the perfection required 
both by the law and by the Gospel, and have, on the 
other hand, asserted the necessary continuance of sin in 
believers till death. Calvin says, 'There never has 
been a saint who, surrounded with a body of death, could 
attain to such a degree of love, as to love God with all 
his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind.' (In- 
stitutes, book ii, chap, vii, sec. 5.) Witsius says, ' We 
are not to imagine that any one in this life can attain to 
that perfection which the law of God requires, that, living 
without sin, he should wholly employ himself in the serv- 
ice of God.' (Economy of the Covenants, Vol. ii, pp. 
55, 56.) Mr. Romaine, in ' The Experience of every 
true Believer,' says, ' He desires to keep his thoughts 



588 



REVIEW OE WESLEYAN PEEEECTION. 



[Paet II. 



from wandering; lie would have his whole heart engaged 
in the duty, but he can not,' (Treatise on Faith, p. 376.) 

" Mr. Toplady says, ' Such being the unrelaxing per- 
fection which the law inflexibly requires, it necessarily 
follows that the supposition of possible perfection on earth 
is the most fanatic dream, and most gigantic delusion 
which can whirl in the brain of a human being.' (Works 
of Aug. Toplady, p. 141.) Dr. John Dick says, ^The 
Ijossihility of perfection in the present state could be 
conceived of only by men who were ignorant of the 
Scripture and of themselves. They must first have low- 
ered the standard of holiness. They must have narrowed 
and abated the demands of the Divine law to meet their 
fancied attainments.' (Theology, Vol. ii, p. 242.) Rev. 
Charles Buck says, 'There is a perfection of degrees, by 
which a person performs all the commands of God, with 
the full exertion of all his powers, without the least de- 
fect. This is what the law of God requires, but what 
the saints can not attain to in this life.' (Theological 
Dictionary, Article Perfection.) In addition to these 
authorities. I give the Westminster divines, and the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. The lan- 
guage adopted by the latter from the former, is as fol- 
lows: 'Q. 149. Is any man able perfectly to keep the 
commandmeyits of God? Ans. Ko man is able, either of 
himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly 
to keep the commands of God; but doth daily break 
them in thought, word, and deed.' (Larger Catechism.)" 
(Peck's Christian Perfection Abridged, pp. 88, 89.) From 
these quotations we have quite a general view of the Cal- 
vinistic theory of perfection. Since these authors deny 
man's ability to keep the law, even with the help of any 
grace received in this life,'' and since such a denial has a 
direct bearing on the subject of Christian perfection, as 
presented in these several arguments, it behooves to offer 
a few objections to their views. 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



589 



(1.) Their theory is contrary to just theological views 
of God as the Divine Lawgiver, {a) No legislator would 
think of making laws, of any kind, which the subjects 
could not obey. The very reverse is the case where 
the law-making power is supposed to act with even tol- 
erable respect toward the welfare of its subjects. It 
looks rather suspicious to suppose the Divine Legislator 
to lay down rules of action, in the enacting of his laws, 
with which the subjects for whom they were intended, 
can not comply. This would be reproachful to a human 
legislator, {h) Our knoAvledge of the Divine attributes 
abhors such a consideration of this question. The wis- 
dom of God, in making laws beyond the abihty of his 
subjects to obey, is not a little impeached. Wisdom 
has been defined to be, "knowledge rightly used." But 
to make laws which can not be obeyed, by those for 
whom they were made, seems to imply a great want of 
adaptation of means to the proposed end. Indeed, the 
position here taken, by those who so regard this subject, 
seems to savor more of an indisposition to perfectly obey 
the Divine will than it does to honor its Author. As to 
the love of God, here involved, much more might be said 
than we are now disposed to say. It is enough to observe 
that the whole plan of our redemption originated in the 
love of God. " God so loved the world," etc. This 
scheme of our recovery affords us eternal salvation em- 
inently conditional, having as its final cause, " that who- 
soever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life." Here is faith in Christ as the condition 
of this salvation, implied in the word "believeth," a 
faith, too, which must be operative and efficient, having 
the whole moral law so connected with it as to be "ful- 
filled," and not to " offend in one point," lest it render 
one " guilty of all," and his faith be " dead." Now, if a 
person "offend in one point," he is "guilty of all" — his 
faith is dead, being without the works of the law, as its 



590 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



proof, and so he must perisli; since, according to the 
theory in question, he can not keep the law. The love 
of God is counteracted in which a plan of endless life 
originated, having such a conditionality in it, on man's 
part, that he can not comply with it, and hence the very 
plan itself subverts the final end which the attribute of 
love originally proposed. The theory is contrary to the 
love of God, and it seems to overthrow all the final ends 
of mercy as to the eternal salvation of man. As to the 
justice of God, in making laws for man which he can not 
keep, we can not w^ell see why he should inflict " ever- 
lasting punishment" as the penalty of transgression, when 
the act was a matter of necessity. 

(2.) The theory is disproved by our ideas of the nature 
of the subjects of law. (a) Law^ was never enacted by 
any wise legislator for the government of the inferior an- 
imals, or for automatons, ih) It has always been made 
for man and the higher orders of intelligents, Avho are free 
moral agents, capable of keeping or of transgressing it; 
that is, they are voluntary subjects. A creature that 
" can not" keep the Divine precepts, but " doth daily break 
them in thought, Avord, and deed," as the Larger Cate- 
chism, above quoted, says, may not be the proper subject 
of such precepts; for, if necessity is laid upon him to 
break them thus, he is not a fit subject of moral govern- 
ment, as a free, accountable, and intelligent being. If 
he is accountably unable to keep the law, from a neces- 
sity, he is equally incapable of breaking it on the very 
same ground. No moral precept can bind a total idiot ; 
for while he can not 'keep it, neither can he violate it. 

(3.) The theory stands equally against the nature of 
law, and that, too, as enacted by the highest power. 

{a) Laws are made, in general, to be kept, and in no 
instance is this more so than as it respects the Divine 
law. Will any legislative power think of making laws 
that can not be kept? The holy commandments given to 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



591 



man were designed as certainly to be kept as they were 
designed to be read. If God did not make us eyes with 
which we can not see, ears with which we can not hear, 
mouths with which we can not speak, teeth with which 
we can not eat, stomachs that will not digest, hands with 
Avhich we can not handle, feet with which we can not 
walk, and hearts with which Ave can not pray, what right 
have we to think that he gave us laws that we caji not 
keep? Is the God of nature merciful, and the God of 
revelation a tyrant? Never can we believe this theory 
till we find that the air we breathe can not support life, 
the fire that burns can not give heat, and the water from 
the fountain can not quench thirst. 

ih) To the transgression of law there is punishment 
annexed, whatever kind of law it may be. Every law of 
nature, so far as we know, inflicts its sore but just pen- 
alty as soon as violated, in a greater or less degree. 
This implies that the subject of law is supposed, by every 
fair consideration of the character of the lawgiver, to be 
capable of having brought on its penalty by his own vol- 
untary act, and so regards such penalty as just. Now, 
since endless punishment is the penalty annexed to the 
Divine law, it implies that the subject so punished could 
have done otherwise. For, in the case of any one trans- 
gression of the moral law, by one of its fit subjects, par- 
don must be procured through Christ, or that soul is 
lost ; but if he could not but break the command, from 
stern necessity, on account of his inability to keep it, he 
has no need to ask for pardon, because the Bible does 
not teach any such thing as a compulsory sin ; such a 
thing is a contradiction in terms — it is malum in se. On 
the other hand. Divine justice can not inflict everlasting 
punishment because the subject could not help himself 
from the transgression. What, then, will we do with the 
case? We can not say the character in question is an 
idiot, that he can thus go unpunished^, for we have assumed 



592 



REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



h'm to be a fit subject of moral law and government, 
which can not be said of an idiot. Nor can we say that 
he will be forgiven by Divine prerogative without request, 
for this would grant eternal life to the incorrigibly 
wicked, and ignore repentance and faith. The only solu- 
tion, therefore, of the difficulty, is, that the theory is mis- 
erably defective. 

(c) The fact that the Bible teaches perfection implies two 
things. Eirst, that this legal perfection must be attained 
either before or after death, since we may conceive of 
death as an instantaneous event, having no element con- 
nected with it calculated to promote our completeness in 
the Divine precepts. It is manifest that our perfection, 
being taught in the Bible, can not take place after death. 
For the Scriptures were given to man as the rule of his 
moral conduct in this life, and not in eternity. Nor can 
we conceive of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, 
and distribution of alms after death, which things form no 
inconsiderable part in the fulfillment of the moral law. 
Secondly, the theory in hand virtually repudiates the 
Divine law as a revelation. For it is admitted by those 
divines themselves that the perfection of which we speak 
is a legal perfection; that is, that it consists in a perfect 
obedience to the Decalogue. Now, the Ten Command- 
ments is as much a revelation of certain truths from God 
to man as any portion of the Bible is ; and its framing 
in the Divine mind presupposes the ideas of right and 
wrong, of perfection and of imperfection being in his 
mind antecedent to his giving the law. But since these 
commandments are a revelation, and actually designed to 
communicate to us the very ideas of perfection, which be- 
fore existed in the mind of God, it follows from the very 
nature of the human mind, that if it has capacity to un- 
derstand such a revelation, it has also capacity to obey it ; 
for it is a question wholly mental and moral. The obedi- 
ence involved lies wholly within the province of the mind. 



Am. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



593 



To say that we can not keep the Divine precepts is either 
to say that we can not understand them, that we can not 
comprehend their import, or that we have no volition at 
all. If the former, why say that the Divine requirements 
are above our powers of obedience, as if we understood 
the law, and had made ourselves its judges? If the lat- 
ter, why imprison the thief for the seemingly involuntary 
act, or hang the murderer? Therefore, the theory seems 
to impeach the Decalogue, as a revelation from God, 
when fairly examined, since Calvinists admit, as much as 
Arminians, the ability of the mind to comprehend such 
revelation, but strangely seem to adhere to a kind of 
mental imbecility as to its perfect fulfillment by the voli- 
tion of the same mind. 

(4.) The theory before us is rather unscriptural. God 
has commanded us to keep the law. No part of the Bible 
can be plainer. " Fear God and keep his commandments; 
for this is the whole duty of man." "If ye love me, 
keep my commandments." " If thou wilt enter into life, 
keep the commandments." Our entering into life de- 
pends on our doing just what Calvinists say we can 
not do ! 

(5.) The theory is contrary to actual facts, (a) Cer- 
tain persons did keep the commandments of God. Zach- 
arias and Elisabeth " were both righteous before God, 
walking in all the commandments and ordinances of 
the Lord blameless." "Noah was . . . perfect." 
He did "according to ALL that God commanded him." 
So might we speak of Job, David, the apostles, prophets, 
and many others, {h) The life of Christ is to be imi- 
tated by all Christians, and he was without sin. In this 
very thing the imitation is to consist: "Be ye therefore 
followers [Greek, fii/j.7]Tac, ijuitators] of God as dear chil- 
dren," etc. 

(6.) The theory is opposed to the design of the ministe- 
rial office. " He gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; 

50 



594 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 
for the PERFECTING of the saints." This perfecting con- 
sisted in religious instruction calculated to induce, and by 
moral suasion compel them to keep, to the utmost exact- 
ness, all the commandments. 

(7.) The impending opinion, we observe finally, is at- 
tended by dangerous consequences, (a) If it be correct 
that man can not keep the moral law, then the doctrine 
is found in the Bible, and actually constitutes a part of 
the Gospel. The minister, therefore, of such a Gospel 
should preach it as a part of his mission; he should de- 
clare it to " all nations ;" he should preach it faithfully. 
(h) It is easy to conceive of the fruits of such preaching 
and its tendencies, not only on society in general, but also 
as to vital piety and true Christianity. With due respect 
to its authors and advocates, we really think that it might 
be difficult for Satan himself to preach a worse doctrine; 
more reproachful to the Divine character, or more baneful 
to human society in its tendencies. Indeed, when that 
grand adversary of God and man sought to ruin the first 
pair, instead of telling them that they could not keep 
the Divine command, as a matter of impossibility, he 
sought, and actually succeeded, in getting them to break 
the law by voluntary act, which shows that they could 
have done otherwise. 

(8.) There are two passages of Scripture in particular 
which Calvinists have used to support the doctrine of the 
necessity of sin in believers. One of these is Eccl. vii, 
20 : " For there is not a just man upon earth that doeth 
good, and sinneth not;" the other is 1 Kings viii, 46: 
"For there is no man that sinneth not." The Princeton 
Review of July, 1842, p. 450, used this language : " Not 
a single text can be adduced, which, properly understood, 
attributes perfection to good men in this life. On the 
contrar}^, the criminal imperfection of them all is most 
plainly asserted." And as to the last-quoted passage 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



595 



above, this Review in the same place says, "It is as evi- 
dent from this passage that no one on earth is perfectly 
holy as that any are imperfect." Dr. Peck, seeing the 
sense in which Calvinists hold these passages, has, wo 
think, satisfactorily refuted them; giving, we presume, 
the better translation, according to other texts of the 
Bible throughout, and we think agreeably to the proper 
rule of Hebrew syntax. Therefore, we will quote his 
exposition of both. He says, ''In my construction of 
these two passages I appeal to the original; not because 
I undervalue the present authorized version of the Bible. 
I believe it in general to be worthy of all confidence, and 
on the whole, a better exhibition of the sense of the orig- 
inals than any translation which has been subsequently 
made, or any we are likely very soon to have. But in 
discussing the language of Scripture, in all cases of a dif- 
ference of opinion, the ultimate appeal must be to the 
originals. And our opponents, it must be presumed, will 
not object to this method of discussion, even should it be 
found that the sound of the words, as in the present ver- 
sion, is rather more favorable to their views than the sense 
of the original text. I can scarcely be left to fear that 
critics so learned for such a reason will refuse to be gov- 
erned by well-established laws of exegesis. 1 Kings viii, 
46 : KDnyxS ")2>N D"JJ« yi< I render, For there is no man 
who may not sin; and Eccl. vii, 20: |^nx3 p"i^ Dix ^3 
NDn:. xSi 2i\:)-ri'^v.y There is not a righteous man upon 
earth who does good and mag not sin. The verb x^n, to 
sin, in these passages is in the future, and I render it sub- 
junctively, with the negative particle, mag not sin; that 
is, there is no man who is not liable to sin. The rule of 
Hebrew syntax authorizing this rendering, may be found 
in all good Hebrew grammars. I give it from Dr. Nord- 
heimer, as follows : ' The future form of the verb is fre- 
quently used to predicate the future occurrence of an event 
as dependent either subjectively on the will of the agent or 



596 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



speaker, or ohjeetively on external circumstances. This 
form is used subjunctively, to denote contingency, that is, 
to predicate not the positive, but the possible, or probable 
future occurrence of an event, signified in English by the 
auxiliaries, mayj might, etc. ; e. g., ^p^i n^j<n iji'X ^3, what- 
ever thy soul may desire, Deut. xiv, 26; V3"5^? that 
he may instruct us concerning his ways, Isa. ii, 3; 
nmj<n ns-nx opS n*nty;, tliat he may not destroy for you the 
produce of the ground, Mai. iii, 11 ; n^n tn^^. d;u ^^t., 
that the nations may know they (are) mefn. Psalm ix, 
21. cxix, 115; nn "h^ whatever may happen to me. 

Job xiii, 13, xiv, 6.'* In the application of the rule just 
recited to the passages under consideration, we are sup- 
ported by some of the best critics — Romish, Lutheran, 
Calvinistic, and Arminian. The Vulgate, or Jerome's ver- 
sion, has non peceet, may not sin. In the interlineal trans- 
lations in the Antwerp, London, and Paris Polyglots; in 
Castalio's, Osiander's, and Francis Junius's versions, we 
have the same; and we have precisely the same rendering 
of the Syriac and Arabic in the London and Paris Poly- 
glots. This result I have arrived at from personal inspec- 
tion of the authorities I quote, and I need not say to the 
scholar, that they present a tide of evidence in favor of 
the version I have given, that it is not easy for the sturdi- 
est spirits to resist. We see here what the best scholars 
of any age since the commencement of the Christian era 
have determined in relation to the proper rendering of the 
original Hebrew text, without any reference at all to the 
question at issue between us and our opponents on the 
subject of the necessary continuance of sin in believers. 
In addition to all this, there is a reason in the context of 
one of the passages in question, which makes our render- 

* " See Critical Grammar of tlie Hebrew Language, Vol. ii, Dependent use 
of the Future, § 993. See also Stuart's Hebrew Grammar, ^ 564, (h,) (i)." 

The same rule will be found in Rodiger's Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar, 
translated by T. J. Conant, 1858, ^ 127, 3, and heads of Hebrew Grammar 
by S. Prideaux Tragelles, LL. ]>., p. 104. 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



597 



ing necessary to preserve a consistent sense. 1 Kings viii, 
46. The words in question are preceded by ' if they sin,' 
which would be perfectly consistent with the parenthetic 
sentence which follows, as we translate it : ' for there is no 
man who mai/ not sin but would be scarcely at all con- 
sistent with the expression of the sense our opponents 
give the passage. They would have Solomon say, IF they 
sin, for they certainly will sin, as thei^e is no man ivho does 
not sin all his life. What sense would there be in the 
hypothetical sentence ^ if they sin,' if indeed there had 
been no IF in the case 

We consider the Doctor's refutation of the necessity of 
a Christian sinning while in the body to be clear, strong, 
and good. 

1 John i, 8 : "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive 
ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This passage has 
also been supposed by Calvinistic writers to teach the nec- 
essary existence of sin in believers ; that is, that a Chris- 
tian can not keep the moral law perfectly while in the 
body. Such a notion, however, compared in the abstract 
with other passages, must not only prove the theory wrong, 
but also prove a misapprehension of St. John's words. 
This text is fully and clearly explained by verse 10, which 
says, " If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a 
liar, and his word is not in us." This is the interpretation 
given by Mr. Wesley and Dr. Adam Clarke. The former 
says, " The tenth verse fixes the sense of the eighth. "f 
The latter says, " This is tantamount to verse ten. "J: 

Now, lest our Calvinistic brethren think that we ex- 
plain their proof-passage agreeably to our own notions by 
quoting Arminian commentators, we respectfully invite 
their attention to the uszis loquendi of the original, which 
may not seem quite so sectarian. The first clause of our 

* Dr. Peek's Christian Perfection Abridged, pp. 158-160. 
f Plain Account of Christian Perfection, p. 25. 
J Comment in loco. 



598 REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



text — If we say that we have no sin — stands in the Greek 
thus : ^ Edv ei~iDiJ.zy on drj.ap-iay ou^ e/orj,£<^. The Greek 
scholar will see that the last word in this clause is a con- 
jugated form of the verb a/to, to have. He will also see 
that this verb often takes an accusative case, and thus 
expresses its meaning periphrasticallj. Greenfield, in his 
lexicon says, '^Followed hy an accusative . . . it forms 
a periphrasis for the verb correspoyiding to the noun, Matt, 
vii, 29, Phil, i, 30, Col. ii, 1, et al., freq." The passage 
referred to in Matthew reads, ''He taught them as one 
having authority;" a'^waiav that is the same as if 
he had said, (oc; IhwatdXcov, as exercising authority. The 
passage referred to in Philippians reads, "Having the 
same conflict." Td-^ adrdy dyth^^a e^ovre^, that is as if he 
had said, dywvi^oixtvoi, conflicting. So of the text in Co- 
lossians. So James ii, 18: "Thou hast faith." Ih mariv 
tyaiq, is the same as TziffzausLq, thou helievest. The Jews 
said to our Lord, "Thou art not yet fifty years old." 
nsvrrjxovra sttj ou-o) ey etc;, fifty years not yet thou hast, w^hich 
is equivalent to an ideal verb which we might suppose, 
having the meaning which our authorized version has 
given it. So rjaoyidv tyoi, I have quiet, means I am quiet. 
Compare the corresponding Latin word habeo, to have. 
Thus : Habere spem in aliquo, to have hope in any one, 
that is, to rely upon any one, put confidence in one ; and 
habere odium in aliquem, to have hatred against any one, 
means to hate any one. So we say in English, " I have 
sickness," "I have my fears," etc., for I am sick, I am 
afraid, etc. Hence, the usage of the word in our text is 
exactly the same, in sense, as the clause inverse 10: 
'J?av d-w/xsv on ouy r^/j.aprijxafxey, if we say that we have not 
sinned. It just agrees with the expositions of Mr. Wes- 
ley and Dr. Adam Clarke. Another passage, which has 
been held in the same sense, is James iii, 2: "For in' 
many things we offend all." On this text Dr. Clarke 
says, " Some have produced these words as a proof that 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



599 



'no man can live without sinning against God;' for James 
himself, a holy apostle, speaking of himself, all the apos- 
tles, and the whole Church of Christ, says, H71 many 
tilings we offend alV This is a very bad and dangerous 
doctrine ; and, pushed to its consequences, would greatly 
affect the credibility of the whole Gospel system. Be- 
sides, were the doctrine as true as it is dangerous and 
false, it is foolish to ground it upon such a text; because 
St. James, after the common mode of all teachers, includes 
himself in his address to his hearers. And were we to 
suppose that here he appears, by the use of the plural 
pronoun^ to include himself, he means to be thus under- 
stood; we must then grant that himself was one of those 
many teachers who were to receive a great condemnation, 
verse 2; that he was a horse-breaker, because he says 
^ive put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey 
i^s,' verse 3; that his tongue was a world of iniquity, and 
set on fire of hell, for he says, ' So is the tongue among 
our members,' verse 6 ; that he cursed men : ' Avherewith 
curse we men,' verse 9. No man possessing common 
sense could imagine that James, or any man of even tol- 
erable morals, could be guilty of those things. But some* 
of those were to whom he wrote ; and, to soften his re- 
proofs, and to cause them to enter more deeply into their 

* Those who believe that sin can and does exist in believers till they are 
" wholly sanctitied," and who prove their views by such passages as say, 
" For ye are carnal," 1 Cor. iii, 3, thereby regarding the whole Church as 
carnal, and consequently must be entirely sanctified as a second blessing, 
would do well to notice that Dr. Clarke, incidentally to our argument, just- 
ifies St. James and others from all such sins in this very note, for he says, 
" Some of those were (thus guilty) to whom he wrote ;" so that he by no 
means charges them all as guilty. Therefore, if their objection is valid, 
on the same ground Dr. Clarke is incorrect; for his remark applies to Ar- 
minians, such as our own writers on Christian perfection, as well as to 
Calvinists. For whether sin in them was free or of necessity does not 
change the fact that it is only attributable to ''some," and these are unbe- 
lievers, and not believers. These observations will apply in all cases where 
our commentators attribute certain sins in the Christian Church to a part 
ONLY, and not to all the Church. 



600 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



hearts, he appears to include himself in his own censure. 
And not one of his readers would understand him as be- 
ing one of the dehnquents.'^ 

The seventh chapter of Romans, where St. Paul speaks 
of one in a certain condition of sin, and speaks in the 
first person, " I am carnal, sold under sin " wretched 
man that I am ! who shall deliver me from the body of 
this death?" has been supposed bj some to teach the 
doctrine of sin in believers. This passage either teaches 
the condition of one in the Divine favor, or it does not. 
That is, St. Paul either speaks of himself or of some one 
else. If of himself, since it is conceded that he was in 
the regenerate state w^hen he wrote the Epistle, we may 
conclude, first, that he did not speak of himself, as one 
regenerated and at the same time "sold under sin," since 
nothing can be more contradictory to arguments already 
advanced, and to his own statement, where he says, 
" There is therefore now no condemnation to them which 
are in Christ Jesus." So he would contradict himself in 
many other passages. Second. According to the gen- 
erally-received opinion that regeneration produces the 
"moral image" of God in the heart, we can not say with 
any degree of consistency, that such a heart is at the 
same time "carnal," "sold," "wretched." Third. Such a 
notion is contrary to our views of an inspired man; for 
we are taught that the inspired men, such as St. Paul 
was, were "holy men," and that they were "moved by 
the Holy Ghost." But to be at the same time "carnal," 
"sold under sin," looks exceedingly inconsistent with our 
ideas of the apostle writing by the inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit. Fourth. Such a view of the passage would 
be wholly contrary to the context, and to the general 
scope of the Epistle. For it asks the question, " How shall 
we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Fifth. 
We think Rev. Richard Watson is here correct. He says, 
"It is somewhat singular, that divines of the Calvinistic 



Aeg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



601 



scliool should be almost uniformly the zealous advocates 
of the doctrine of the continuance of indwelling sin till 
death ; but it is but justice to say, that several of them 
have as zealously denied that the apostle, in the seventh 
chapter of Romans, describes the state of one who is 
justified by faith in Christ, and very properly consider 
the case there spoken of as that of one struggling in 
LEGAL bondage, and brought to that point of self-despair 
and of conviction of sin and helplessness which must 
always precede an entire trust in the merits of Christ's 
death, and the power of his salvation."* Mr. Wesley on 
this text says, "The character here assumed is that of a 
man, first, ignorant of the law, then under it, and sin- 
cerely but ineffectually striving to serve God. To have 
spoken this of himself, or of any true BELiEVER,f would 
have been foreign to the whole scope of his discourse; 
nay, utterly contrary thereto ; as well as to what is ex- 
pressly asserted.- Chap, viii, 2." (Note m loco.) Mr. 
Benson quotes Mr. Wesley verbatim; Dr. Adam Clarke is 
to the same effect. Sixth. It is unnecessary to mention 
texts of a similar kind any further ; for the Bible, thus 
far, maintains its consistency, and on a fair interpretation 
can no more contradict itself than the orbs of heaven can 
conflict. The different authors of our Church have well 
defended the doctrine of a perfect legal obedience against 
the theory in question, who may be consulted at any time 
with profit. 

3. The third minor division of this second part of our 
conclusion, is to notice, that Christian perfection properly 
understood is practical. 

(a) It is a doctrine practical as any other as to the 

* Institutes, Vol. ii, chap. xxix. 

■f Mr. Wesley's words here are in our favor against the Calvinists, and we 
think he is correct in this note. But can we reconcile him with himself 
where, speaking of one justified, he says, "Yet sin remains in him, yea, 
the seed of all sin, till he is sanctified throughout ?" (Plain Account of 
Christian Perfection, p. 48.) 



602 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



pulpit. What minister of the Gospel is there who can 
not preach the observance of the moral law, as Christ and 
his disciples did, as the proof of regeneration? This 
would be preaching Christian perfection, as has been 
shown from the beginning of this work. Let the min- 
ister of the Gospel enforce each command of the Deca- 
logue. In doing so he enforces Christian perfection and 
sanctification, both which, as themes for the pulpit, are 
plain to any man who is honest with that God from whom 
he professes to have received the divine commission to 
preach the Gospel, a part of which is the enforcing of 
the moral law in every point, which, of course, is prac- 
tical. But perfection, as it has been believed and taught 
heretofore by our Church, is not a practical doctrine, as 
to the pulpit. For, on account of its darkness as a doc- 
trine, the preachers themselves have not been able to 
comprehend it, as a theory, or enjoy it as a blessing of 
practical and experimental utility; and being in the dark 
they have not been able to preach it as a distinct work 
of grace to others. Our own difficulty has been, that 
while we have satisfactorily understood our authors, as to 
their view of the subject set forth in their works, we have 
not found it taught in the Scriptures, so as to afford a 
clew to preach it; nor have we ever had the satisfaction 
to hear another preach it. In this respect our Church, as 
a body of ministers, have followed the great Teacher very 
well, generally. But the doctrine is even questioned, to 
a considerable degree, by the ministry, as occasional ar- 
ticles in the Church periodicals on perfection, or entire 
sanctification, lead us to suspect. Besides this, our per- 
sonal acquaintance with many able and practical theolo- 
gians, for several years past, has introduced us into many 
a circle of pleasant, but we may say very unsatisfactory 
conversation, as to the received theory on account of its 
profound obscurity. 

In support of the impracticability of the doctrine, now 



Arq. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



603 



in hand, we offer the words of one of the Bishops in 
office, when Avritten, who was an admirer of what is termed 
entire sanctification. Dr. Peck having written his book 
on " Christian Perfection," Bishop Hamline wrote a rec- 
ommendation of the work, which was first published in 
the Western Christian Advocate, when Dr. Charles Elliott 
was editor of that paper. This recommendation was after- 
ward published in Dr. Peck's book, from which we will 
give an extract: "Brother Elliott, — Probably this 
book has obtained a circulation in some parts of the 
Methodist Church commensurate with its value; but in 
other regions it is scarcely yet introduced among the peo- 
ple, and even some of the preachers have not read it. 
This I regret, as I am confident that the cause of vital 
religion would be extensively subserved by its being gen- 
erally perused in a spirit of serious inquiry after truth. 
No weighty Christian doctrine inculcated in our standard 
works, and preached by our ministers, has so signally 
FAILED to exert its proper practical effects on the Church 
as that of Christian perfection. The doctrine of original 
sin is so believed by a million of our members as to have 
impressed on their consciences a distressing conviction of 
their depravity and their utter helplessness. The doctrine 
of atonement is so preached that hundreds of thousands 
have struggled not in vain to plunge in the fountain for 
sin and uncleanness. The doctrine of regeneration by 
the Holy Spirit is so inculcated that by far the largest 
portion of our members are born of the Holy Ghost. In 
a word, every cardinal doctrine embraced in our creed, 
and in our pastoral ministrations, seems to be extensively 
and encouragingly practical, except that of Christiai^ 
Perfection. This last seems to be a mere speculation 
IN the Church, so far as forty-nine-fiftieths of her 
members are concerned. Were any other important doc- 
trine, confessedly experimental in its aims, to gain so lit- 
tle influence over our members, we would be thrown into 



604 REVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



a state bordering on despair, and should be in danger of 
concluding either that the doctrine itself is false, or that 
the Church is almost universally skeptical in regard 
to it. What if not more than one in forty or fifty of 
our members were convicted of sin, or were regenerated 
and pardoned ! Yet the doctrine in question is confessed 
to be as practical in its aims, and as available for Chris- 
tian comfort and advancement, as any doctrine of reve- 
lation. While it is practical with one among scores, it 
is intended to be so with every regenerated member of 
the Church; and ivhy it is not is an important question. 
Doubtless one reason is, that no other doctrine of its 
class is so uninfluential on the ministry. Our preachers, 
for the most part, do not enjoy perfect love. I believe a 
great number of them are seeking it ; and a much larger 
proportion of them than the private members enjoy it. 
Yet the majority of them are without it, and striving to 
preach the Gospel without it. But how can they preach 
this doctrine of the Gospel while it is inoperative in their 
own hearts? Their successful vindication of the 
POCTRINE is self-reproach. Themselves are condemned 
by every forcible appeal they make to the people on 
this subject. How can they urge others forward "while 
they stand back? How reprove while themselves need 
reproof? ' Thou that sayest a man should not steal, dost 
thou steal?' is an interrogation just as suitable in this 
case as -svhere outward acts or morals are concerned. 
But another reason why the doctrine of Christian perfec- 
tion is not more practical is the ivant of information. 
The doctrine has been much abused. Especially of late, 
the ' Perfectionists,' and — between them as in the extreme 
of error, and the Wesleyans, who take their views from 
the Bible — a great variety of errorists have so industri- 
ously propagated opinions more or less variant — but not 
grossly — from the Scriptures, that it requires careful and 
industrious study to distinguish truth from error, and 



Aeg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



605 



settle the mind in a clear and steadfast appreliehsion of 
the nature and importance of this doctrine." 

So says the Bishop, as to the impracticability of Chris- 
tian perfection, as it has been taught. Although these 
words had reference to the impracticability of the doc- 
trine, as such, about the time that Dr. Peck's book first 
appeared, although that book served a good purpose since 
its publication, as opposed to necessary transgression of the 
Divine law taught by some, yet, as to the true, practical, 
and Scriptural theory, the world seems to be little, if any, 
wiser from his book than before it was written. He left 
both his friends and his opponents in the dark as to the 
main issue, while in some things held by the latter, he 
proved himself more than their match. The General 
Conference, we are aware, has recognized the book in the 
" Course of Study " for ministers, more, no doubt, from 
a want of a clearer exegesis of the subject, than fr-om 
any truly theoretical and practical characteristics belong- 
ing to the work. These thoughts are not premature; for 
the book has been respectfully read and studied, and our 
objections to the whole theory duly described in former 
arguments. But what has the Bishop taught us by way 
of recommendation to the Doctor's work, but simply that 
the doctrine is sorrowfully impracticable? He admits, 
(1.) That every cardinal doctrine embraced in our creed 
and in our pastoral ministrations seems to he extensively 
and encouragingly practical, except that of Christian 

PERFECTION. (2.) ThAT OUR PREACHERS, FOR THE MOST 
PART, DO NOT ENJOY PERFECT LOVE. (3.) It IS INOPERA- 
TIVE ON THEIR OWN HEARTS. (4.) ThEIR SUCCESSFUL 
VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE IS SELF-REPROACH. We 

learn from these statements, although designed for a 
"recommendation," that the doctrine as held by the 
Bishop and his compeers, is impracticable as a pulpit 
theme almost absolutely even in his estimation. 

(6) Christian perfection, if properly understood, is prac- 



606 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Pabt II. 



tical in its profession. If any one keep the command- 
ments of God, as the fruit of inward purity, that person 
is perfect, as already shown. What professing Christian 
can not do this, if he will, with the help of that Divine 
grace which is never withheld? Christian perfection, 
therefore, is as practical as is the keeping of the Sab- 
bath day holy ; for the former is but the genus of which 
the latter is a species. But if it be a work in the heart 
subsequent to regeneration, it is, as to its profession in 
Christian life, absolutely impracticable. The Bishop says, 
Our preachers for the most part do not enjoy perfect love. 
I believe a great number of them are seeking it; and a 
much larger proportion of them than the private members 
enjoy it. Yet the majority of them are without it. This 
is very true, and all the statements of the Bishop, in his 
recommendation, we regard as true to the letter, and as 
much so now as when he wrote it, except where he says 
a proportion of the preachers "enjoy it.'' We hav^been 
preaching according to the best of our ability for twelve 
years, and we confess with the Bishop, that although the 
self-reproach of its successful vindication we have never 
felt, we have, nevertheless, more than once felt self-re- 
proach for trying to prepare a sermon on it, on account 
of its impenetrable darkness as a theory. Nor have we 
ever found more than one preacher, of our own personal 
acquaintance, who professed it. We have heard and read 
of several who did; nor have we ever found a man who, 
either in private conversation or as an expounder in the 
pulpit, could satisfactorily defend and set forth this doc- 
trine. Yerily, " the majority of them are without it 
while all those who have written on the subject from the 
days of Mr. John Wesley to the present, as far as we 
know, have left us what many able and impartial thinkers 
regard as dissatisfactory and confused views of the doc- 
trine. The private members of the Church can not un- 
derstand it, when their preachers, their more intelligent 



Abg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



607 



teachers, can not. " The disciple is not above his mas- 
ter." Those who hold to perfection, as such, claim that 
it is absolutely essential to final salvation, although they 
claim that regeneration is sufficient! And since it is 
taught to us so completely in the dark, and it the great 
important doctrine, so held, its utter obscurity, theoret- 
ically and practically, both as a pulpit theme and as to 
its enjoyment in the heart, is, to us at least, a sufficient 
presumption against such a doctrine having any exist- 
ence in the Bible; for it is highly presumable that if it is 
the great doctrine as to man's eternal salvation, God 
would have revealed it most plainly of all. And this is 
really the case as to regeneration, the only inward work 
of grace, and as to the observance of the Divine law as 
its fruits. Reader, please observe particularly that these 
two things are more clearly, forcibly , extensively, and elab- 
orately taught in the Holy Scriptures, than perhaps all 
other doctrines put together. And why? Because they 
contain the SUM TOTAL of our duty toward both God and 
our fellows. 

4. A fourth consideration, under the second part of our 
conclusion, will show that perfection properly understood is 
USEFUL. I mean that it is serviceable, profitable. This 
can not be said of that theory of perfection which some 
hold; for it is not useful to the preacher as a theme for 
the pulpit — he fails to preach it. He feels "self-re- 
proach" if he touches it. It is not useful to him as a 
blessing — he fails to enjoy it. He seeks for it to end his 
pursuit in disappointment. It is not useful to the mem- 
bers of the Church, for, says Mr. Hamline, It seems to be 
a mere speculation in the Church, so far as forty -nine-fif- 
tieths of her members are concerned. Were any other im- 
portant doctrine, confessedly experimental in its aim, to 
gain so little influence over our members, we should be 
thrown into a state bordering on despair, and should be in 
danger of concluding either that the doctrine itself is false^ 



608 



REVIEW OF WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



or that the Church is almost universally sJceptical in regard 
to it. What if not more than one in forty or fifty of our 
members were convicted of sin, or were regenerated and 
jpardoned ! 

Such is the mournful cry of one of the strong advo- 
cates of this doctrine. How can such be useful ? How 
serviceable or profitable ? Can a " mere speculation " be 
useful as a doctrine either to enlighten, comfort, or edify? 
The same writer speaks of the doctrine, as it is held, as 
being practical in its aims J' No one doubts this. The 
finger-boards on the tree, pointing to the town ahead, is 
also practical in its aims; but the place it points to is 
always ahead. So is this; the great, high stand-point at 
which it aims is always ahead of the inscription. The 
Christian traveler can never reach the extra-regenerated 
goal, and prove that the doctrine is useful or beneficial. 
But if the true doctrine be understood, as the observance 
of the moral law in every point to the utmost of our ca- 
pacity to understand, and power to obey, as the proof of 
a regenerated soul, then the doctrine is useful, profitable, 
beneficial, good, and plain to all. It -must be so, being 
so comprehensible, practical, and fully taught. 

To those who have professed entire sanctification, as 
they term it, we would most kindly pay a tribute of 
respect in the close of these arguments. Perhaps you 
may think that we have lowered the standard of holiness^ 
and of Bible doctrine as to inward Christian purity. 
Nay, perhaps your standard has been too high. We 
think this has been the case as to the manner of speaking 
it, as to the way of obtaining it, as to the habit of rep- 
resenting it, either as a continuation of God's work in 
the soul, of which regeneration is but the beginning, or 
as a subsequent and distinct work. In a relative respect, 
it has thus been regarded as something much superior to 
the new birth. But all the descriptions of the blessing 
that we have ever seen, as it respects it as an inward 



Arg. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



609 



work, and as to its fruits, rise no higher than regenera- 
tion and fall just as low. The view herein given of the 
heart of one born of God, we hold to be as great, as 
complete, as thorough in every respect as any man can 
describe his views of entire sanctification to be. Even 
Mr. Watson, in his Theological Dictionary, as before 
shown, could not describe the latter state of grace, as he 
understood it, as any greater than the former. Let us 
further inquire of you. Do you profess entire sanctifica- 
tion as such f By what particular point of obedience did 
you obtain it? What extra quality or characteristic has 
it? Did you obtain it hj faith, the condition made known 
to Abraham? Did you obtain it through the merits of 
the blood of Christ, the Messiah promised to Abraham and 
his seed? Is your heart now, as to purity, more than in 
the ''image of God?" Have you more than the witness 
of the Spirit as to your acceptance with God? Are you 
now more than a son of God? In bearing the fruits of 
a true Christian, do you do more than fulfill the moral 
law to the utmost of all your powers of body and spirit ? 
If you can not answer these questions otherwise than a 
merely regenerated man would, we would finally ask, 
Does not your blessing of such a very high order look 
very much like regeneration ? But to return. 

Perfection may be preached and enforced practically so 
as to oppose all wrongs among men toward one another. 
It can be preached all the time, and to all men, unto the 
destruction of all sin. The sainted author of the ''Plain 
Account of Christian Perfection " asks, " In what manner 
should we preach sanctification ?" and answers, " Scarce 
at all to those who are not pressing forward; to those 
who are, always by way of promise." (Page 49.) What a 
misapprehension ! How strange that any doctrine of the 
Bible should be held in such a singular sanctity as to be 
preached scarce at all I If as individuals, or as a Church, 
■we would be perfect, we must preach it. This we can do 



610 



KEVIEW OF WESLETAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



in the same manner as Christ and his apostles did; 
namely, preach expressly against every conceivable sin 
which the Decalogue would forbid ; enforce every minor 
precept coming under the same moral code. Why has 
Christianity made, comparatively, so little progress in 
eighteen hundred and sixty-four years? Many reasons 
might be given ; doubtless one is, because comparatively 
few of its ministers were born of the Holy Spirit, and 
" endued with power from on High and a far less num- 
ber still can say, " I have not shunned to declare unto 
you the whole counsel of God." We do not say that 
hundreds of ministers have fulfilled their time in places 
where in the providence of God they were sent to preach, 
but have not fulfilled their ministry^ that they have pleased 
the "itching ears "'of the highly fastidious, without so 
much as once making plainly known to them God's 
infinite hatred of sin, and the awful danger of the sin- 
ner! "By their fruits ye shall know them." These are 
not noted for great revivals of religion in their respective 
fields of labor. Let us then abhor idolatry and teach 
others to do so. Let us denounce that common and un- 
blushing profanity of taking God's holy name in vain. 
Let us speak plainly against Sabbath-breaking. Let us 
be faithful in teaching honor to parents. Let us denounce 
murder, whether by means of a deadly weapon directly, 
or by the lurking, mean, indirect, but frequent and sure 
method of the rum-seller. Nor should we forget to ex- 
pose the crime of theft ; and abundantly warn the covet- 
ous, suffering them not to forget that ''if any man love 
the world, the love of the Father is not in him." We, if 
the true ministers of Christ, must come out plainly before 
the world and for God, and let all men know that "the 
LAW is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless 
arid disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for un- 
holy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murder- 
ers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for 



Aeo. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



611 



them that defile themselves with mankind, for men- 
STEALERS, for LIARS, for PERJURED persons, and if there 
be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." 
There are many professing Christians who would be per- 
fect, if judged by their words, whose daily walk and 
business transactions the inflexible law of God would de- 
nounce. Nor can it be said that like peculiarities are 
always wanting in public bodies and organizations of men, 
whether religious or political. Is there no disposition to 
supplant — to act unbecoming the Gospel in almost every 
conceivable way where love, the effulgence of the God- 
head, would throw the shield of brotherly-kindness athwart 
the interests of selfishness? Are not the "leading spir- 
its" in such organizations rather thus addicted on some 
occasions — the ones most officious — the aspirants? Are 
not proper offices of political and religious trust, in such 
cases, prostituted for self-aggrandizement, perhaps at the 
ruination of their equals, though mere inferiors in office, 
under the vain impression that the trickery is unperceived 
by the manly and just? Is it not a fact that all the 
popularity and greatness that belong to some are merely 
relative, being obtained, not by the praiseworthy eleva- 
tion of themselves in all that is laudable, but by the 
depression of those who are around them? In speak- 
ing of these, however, deserving just rebuke, we do 
not intend to say that they are like the chivalrous con- 
federates, who undertook to elevate themselves to thrones 
erected upon the oppression of their downtrodden equals, 
nor that their delusion will eventually appear as great. 
He who would blot out the star of another's hope, not 
only eclipses forever his own sun, but he winks at the 
wholesome exhortation, " Let each esteem other better 
than themselves." Ah! heaven-born precept, rarely 
adopted son of earth, thou art perfection. But let such 
as profess that religion whence this golden maxim comes, 
practice it. Let them remember, " All things whatsoever 



612 



REVIEW OF TVESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Paet II. 



ye -vvould that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
them ; for this is the law and the prophets." " Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Need it be repeated 
that this is perfection — that it is sanctification ? In lieu 
of repetition it is enough to say there is no other. 

When will the Christian world, professedly so called, 
learn to lay aside the hypocritical cloak of Judas and put 
on the pure raiment of our dear Lord and Savior Jesus 
Christ ? God ! hasten the day. The fact, however, is 
not forgotten that there are a hallowed few who " walk in 
all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blame- 
less." We would not at all disparage; we mean in all 
godly jealousy toward the Christian world, to provoke to 
faith and good works. We give the entire world due 
credit for all the sanctified. But must not the friends of 
Christian perfection, as taught in the Bible, come out and 
practice and enforce the moral law as Christ and his 
apostles have commanded? Can any one fairly object to 
this theory of a question so important, which herein is, 
perhaps, more extensively argued, and proof-passages in 
favor of other views more fully weighed and disproved, 
than have been in' any book on the subject, so far as our 
knowledge extends? Should any one object to our posi- 
tion, upon the whole, the very fact of his objection will 
be taken as presumptive evidence, if not prima facie, 
that our view is defective. We shall, therefore, regard 
him as a very pious man, whose devotion to God is cir- 
cumscribed by our limited views of the Divine require- 
ment, so that he has not room enough to be sufficiently 
religious, who is aiming to be inwardly more pure than 
what is meant by the soul being in the "image of God," 
and whose external deportment, measured by the Divine 
law, would reach forth to works of supererogation. At 
all events, we suggest that it might be profitable for him 
to prove by experience the standard which we have laid 
down before he wage his objection. K our views have 



Aro. XXIV.] 



CONCLUSION. 



613 



been so presented in these arguments as to merit the 
acknowledgment of accuracy, will any Christian minister 
forbear to joreacA and even profess Christian perfection? 
Does any minister desire to be perfect, and at the same 
time manifest signs of shame and fear to declare the whole 
moral law in its minute bearings to wicked and erring 
men ? Or does he for the sake of a temporary earthly 
popularity, starve immortal souls attempting to feed them 
flowers, while the rich fruits of the Gospel he withholds ? 
It is plain and pointed preaching that does the execution. 
"Preach the Word." It is "quick and powerful." The 
world will never be converted to God till his ministers 
faithfully, fearlessly, and unmovably preach the Bible to 
the people. If the Christian ministry with one voice had 
faithfully preached against the godless system of Ameri- 
can slavery from the very beginning of that " sum of all 
villainies" among us, this rebellion, its heaven-sent pen- 
alty, would have been unknown and unfelt by this gener- 
ation. The vengeful stroke is just. The law that was 
made for '■^ men- stealers'' must be executed. If the 
Christian minister refuse to preach God's holy law 
against the sins of both Church and State, he will feel 
the penalty thereof. " If thou dost not speak to warn 
the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his 
iniquity ; but his blood w^ill I require at thine hand." 
Ezek. xxxiii, 8. Had the prophet lived in our day, he 
probably would have found some in the Church who would 
coolly dictate to him how he should preach, so as not to 
interfere wdth the "Divine right" of slavery; who are of 
such tender conscience as to absolutely refuse to subscribe 
for a periodical in their Church that would interfere Avith 
this " sacred institution " — the last relic of heathenism, 
and the sum of barbarity and injustice. What vague 
ideas such men have of Christian perfection! Would 
such like to be slaves themselves ? If so, we would not 
so much blame them. If not, "Whatsoever ye would 



614 



REVIEW OP WESLEYAN PERFECTION. [Part II. 



that men should do unto you, do je even so to them; for 
this is the law and the prophets." The Church and the 
world want men to-day, more than ever they were wanted, 
who are sufficiently honest with God, and sincere in their 
calling, to preachy as the Scripture teaches, justification by 
works. He who will not do it regardless of the frowns of 
the world, will not preach Christian perfection. They are 
identical. We thank God there are some who do this. We 
need more; those, too, who will execute practical Disci- 
pline, and enforce the " General Rules." The Church in 
all her sister branches will be unsanctified till the trans- 
gression of any one of the moral laws of God, or of any 
precept contained therein, such as would " exclude from 
the kingdom of grace and glory,'' be the cause of expul- 
sion, and their exact observance the rigid test of member- 
ship. Then will the Church be " a chosen generation, a 
royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people ; that 
ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called 
you out of darkness into his marvelous light." Amen. 



THE END. 



H 253 82 



i 

! 








^ '••0' ^ aT- C 



°- /'.i^A 



AO, 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 



r '^S^' ''t'j PreservationTechnologies 

® OV * w'^SXW' * ^ ' * WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

♦ -^Birw- * 4^ *• 111 Thomson Park Dnve 

^ • ♦ • <0 ^« • » * CranbenyTownship, PA 16066 

"^^ .V*». .(3L> (724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 650 194 1 



